Dear
all:
Based on draft-ietf-sip-service-examples-02.txt call
scenario,
There are some
questions:
In 2.4 Unattended
Transfer (page 41)
Q1.The F5 step: User
A send a REFER message to user B, it is based on the
original
dialog between user A and userB. Should it use a new dialog(using a new
Call-ID) for REFER transaction?
Q2.If user B receive
the REFER request, what kind of response user B can reply except
202(Accepted)?
Is it possible for user B to reject or other response for the REFER request
?
In 2.5 Attended
Transfer(page 47)
Q1. The F17 step:
From the detail message, it use a new Call-ID (but from-tag and to-tag is
not changed)
for REFER
transaction, is it correct ? or a typing error? Since the REFER
(F17 and F18) and NOTIFY(F24 and 25)
transaction using the
new dialog for REFER and NOTIFY transactions.
Compare to unattended
transfer, the REFER and NOTIFY transaction should use the previous INVITE
dialog or use a new
dialog(using a new Call-ID, from-tag, to-tag or not)?
Q2. About the F17
REFER request message:
There including a
Refer-To header as :
Refer-To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Replaces=
[EMAIL PROTECTED];to-tag=5f35a3;from-tag=8675309&Accept-
Contact=<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;only=true
[EMAIL PROTECTED];to-tag=5f35a3;from-tag=8675309&Accept-
Contact=<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;only=true
This message
will notify the userA to replace a dialog
and When User
A receive the message, it will send a INVITE message with Replace
header:
In the
Replace :[EMAIL PROTECTED];to-tag=23431;from-tag=8675309
How to
fill the to-tag and from-tag ? the to-tag is the remote tag for original hold
dialog and the from-tag?
How to
distinguish the from-tag and to-tag in this case?
Any comment are appreciated.
Acer
_1_0_0111_0010_11_000_10_0111_111_10_1_0_111_
Hsu,
Hung-Chi -- Call me "Acer"...
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel : 886-3-5914494 Fax
: 886-3-5820310
Internet
Telecommunication Dept. CCL/ITRI
_101_11000_1_0_101_00_1_010_001101_0101_111_11_
