Hi,
I think it is legal to send a body in the BYE message. One of the typical
uses is carrying charge information for the call as a text body or html body
to be displayed to the user. It is useful in B2B UA scenarios where the B2B
UA (softswitch) bills the user.
In fact in this case the 200 for BYE shall also carry a body, which I am not
sure, if it is legal?
Regards,
Prasanna
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 07:25:53 -0400
From: "M. Ranganathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: N.I.S.T. Advanced Networking Technologies Division
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Body in BYE message??
Hello!
Does it make sense (is it legal) to include a body in a BYE message and
if so, what could be its uses?
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Regards
Ranga.
--
M. Ranganathan
N.I.S.T. Advanced Networking Technologies Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8920, Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Tel:301 975 3664; fax:301 590 0932
Advanced Networking Technologies for the people!
--__--__--
Message: 5
From: Neumaerker Elke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'sip-implementors mailing list'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 15:24:45 +0200
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Date-header in REGISTER response
Hi all,
According to bis09 "the response SHOULD include a Date header field".
How should be the reaction of a Registrar, if it detects a malformed
Date-header in the REGISTER-request ?
(1) Ignore it and insert a correct Date-header in the REGISTER-response ?
(2) Ignore it and return the malformed header ?
(3) Reject the REGISTER with 400 Bad Request ?
Thanks for your time,
Elke
_____________________________________
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 09:04:48 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Lucent Technologies, Inc./Bell Laboratories
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Attila Sipos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Robert Sparks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] route sets for "Route" and "Record-Route"
inline.
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>
> "Vijay K. Gurbani" wrote:
>
>>Inline.
>>
>>Attila Sipos wrote:
>>
>>>I have a question regarding section "12.2.1.1 Generating the Request"
>>>in RFC2543 bis-09.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If the route set is not empty, and its first URI does not contain
>>>
>>the
>>
>>>> lr parameter, the UAC MUST place the first URI from the route set
>>>> into the Request-URI, stripping any parameters that are not allowed
>>>> in a Request-URI. The UAC MUST add a Route header field containing
>>>> the remainder of the route set values in order, including all
>>>> parameters. The UAC MUST then place the remote target URI into the
>>>> Route header field as the last value.
>>>>
>>>> For example, if the remote target is sip:user@remoteua and the route
>>>> set contains
>>>>
>>>> <sip:proxy1>,<sip:proxy2>,<sip:proxy3;lr>,<sip:proxy4>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The request will be formed with the following Request-URI and Route
>>>> header field:
>>>>
>>>> METHOD sip:proxy1
>>>> Route: <sip:proxy2>,<sip:proxy3;lr>,<sip:proxy4>,<sip:user@remoteua>
>>>>
>>>The last sentence in the first paragraph says:
>>>"The UAC MUST then place the remote target URI into the
>>>Route header field as the last value."
>>>
>>>My question:
>>>Is the remote traget URI added to the "route set"?
>>
>>Yes; it is appended to the Route set.
>
> No, that is not right. Please see Robert's response on this - Robert is
> correct.
I am afraid, as far as I can tell, in the particular case that Attila
is describing above, the remote target URI will be added to the Route
set because *the topmost entry in the Route set did NOT contain a
"lr"*. Thus, the UA is dealing with a next hop server that is not
-09bis compliant.
From a UAC's point of view, the target URI is used as the R-URI only
when the Route set is empty, or the first entry in the Route set
contains an "lr" (thereby specifying a next hop server that is -09bis
compliant).
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216
--__--__--
Message: 7
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] route sets for "Route" and "Record-Route"
From: Robert Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Attila Sipos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03 Jun 2002 10:24:00 -0500
Vijay -
What piece of text are you looking at that is leading
you to believe that the remote target URI would be placed
in the route set? There shouldn't be _any_ text that could be
interpreted that way. The remote target URI and the route set are
disjoint concepts.
The first element of the route set not being a loose router
only affects how the Route header field of a message is
constructed, not what is in the route set. Yes - if that
first element doesn't contain ;lr, the Remote target URI is going
to be placed in the Route header field. But that is not the same
thing as placing it in the route set.
RjS
On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 09:04, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> inline.
>
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > "Vijay K. Gurbani" wrote:
> >
> >>Inline.
> >>
> >>Attila Sipos wrote:
> >>
> >>>I have a question regarding section "12.2.1.1 Generating the Request"
> >>>in RFC2543 bis-09.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> If the route set is not empty, and its first URI does not contain
> >>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>> lr parameter, the UAC MUST place the first URI from the route set
> >>>> into the Request-URI, stripping any parameters that are not allowed
> >>>> in a Request-URI. The UAC MUST add a Route header field containing
> >>>> the remainder of the route set values in order, including all
> >>>> parameters. The UAC MUST then place the remote target URI into the
> >>>> Route header field as the last value.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, if the remote target is sip:user@remoteua and the route
> >>>> set contains
> >>>>
> >>>> <sip:proxy1>,<sip:proxy2>,<sip:proxy3;lr>,<sip:proxy4>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The request will be formed with the following Request-URI and Route
> >>>> header field:
> >>>>
> >>>> METHOD sip:proxy1
> >>>> Route: <sip:proxy2>,<sip:proxy3;lr>,<sip:proxy4>,<sip:user@remoteua>
> >>>>
> >>>The last sentence in the first paragraph says:
> >>>"The UAC MUST then place the remote target URI into the
> >>>Route header field as the last value."
> >>>
> >>>My question:
> >>>Is the remote traget URI added to the "route set"?
> >>
> >>Yes; it is appended to the Route set.
> >
> > No, that is not right. Please see Robert's response on this - Robert is
> > correct.
>
> I am afraid, as far as I can tell, in the particular case that Attila
> is describing above, the remote target URI will be added to the Route
> set because *the topmost entry in the Route set did NOT contain a
> "lr"*. Thus, the UA is dealing with a next hop server that is not
> -09bis compliant.
>
> From a UAC's point of view, the target URI is used as the R-URI only
> when the Route set is empty, or the first entry in the Route set
> contains an "lr" (thereby specifying a next hop server that is -09bis
> compliant).
>
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
> Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
> Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
> Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
End of Sip-implementors Digest
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
