Inline Steve Langstaff wrote:
On Behalf Of Paul KyzivatE Rajasekharan-A20741 wrote:This is regarding the TWO_WAY_HOLD 1) A - B in conversation2) A initiates Hold 3) B Accepted (A-B on hold)You didn't say, but lets assume:- A offered sendonly at (2) - B answered recvonly at (3)Assuming above precondition, Please answer following question... 4) B initiates Holdis it accepted at first ? (At B, It knows that other end is held, should It be stillallowed to Hold again ?)I think this is a matter of stating the facts. The fact that B is on hold isn't negotiable. (The hold button was pushed.)I know of one B2BUA that refuses to allow a hold of a held call, with the following response code: SIP/2.0 400 Bad request, Peer has already put the call on hold so you have to work round that in your implementation.
Let me get this straight - in the terms above, you are saying that the B2BUA is A, and that once A has offered B sendonly and accepted an answer of recvonly from B, that if B then subsequently sends a reinvite with an offer of sendonly then A responds with 400?
Well, that is just a bug. Perhaps it would be good for B to be tolerant of such a bug, but I would certainly complain about it.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
