From: Steve Langstaff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Looks like you have too many X's there - shouldn't there be a > 'Z' somewhere, or is 'X' really blind transferring themselves? > > "If a SIP party X performs a blind transfer of party X to party Y" Ooops, sorry, that's a typo. That should read: "If a SIP party X performs a blind transfer of party Y to party Z" Thanks for pointing that out. Emily > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Emily Smith > Sent: 26 June 2006 13:42 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Sip-implementors] SIP blind transfer question > > > Hello, > > I am new to the list and relatively new to SIP as well. I > have a question I hope someone can answer here. I have > searched the SIP RFCs and drafts to no avail. > > If a SIP party X performs a blind transfer of party X to > party Y, and the SIP proxy sends a NOTIFY (100 Trying) to the > Sip party X, followed by a re-INVITE with the same Call-ID > prior to sending a NOTIFY (200 Ok), what should the SIP > device X's response be to the extraneous re-INVITE? Since > party X is on-hook at the time since this is a blind rather > than an attended transfer, he could re-ring X's line (though > there is no party calling, so this is confusing to the user), > or he could ignore the re-INVITE since he is waiting for a > NOTIFY 200 Ok state. > > Is there any guidance in the SIP RFCs/drafts for SIP User > Agent behavior in this situation, or is it up to the > individual UA to implement as desired? > > Many thanks in advance, > > Emily Smith > DMS-10 Software Development > Nortel > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Office 919.992.7467 > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
