----- Original Message ----- From: "R.G.Tonkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "SIP Questions [sip-implementors] (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:24 AM Subject: [Sip-implementors] Should 183-Session progress response supply a To tag?
> Hi - > > Could anyone point me to information defining whether a "183-Session > progress" Informational response - MUST/SHOULD/MAY/etc. supply a "To" tag? > [ABN] it is MUST. even though its informational its been initiated by SIP application (100 is excepational to this...) > SIP Call traces in draft-ietf-sipping-pstn-call-flows-01.txt illustrate To > tags being supplied, however, I haven't found anything definitively stating > whether it must be, or is not, supplied... > > 183's appear to be generated by Gateways connected to ss7 networks. Upon > receipt of ACM, in response to IAM from INVITE, the called GW sends 183 to > establish early media [SDP supplied] for in-band tones [ring/beep/etc] from > the PSTN as opposed to the UA generating the tones locally. > [ABN] the interworking gateways must generate the to-tag when it receives the ACM and send the 183 with to-tag. The interworking gateways must do these kind of extra processing in addition to normal IE processing > I am having a little difficulty trying to interop with a Gateway that does > not give me a To tag. This is preventing me from establishing a unique > dialog and setting up calls...So, I'm looking to find out whether this is > really an issue or not so I can properly address it. > > Best Regards, > RGT - > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
