Hi Ponarjit, In SIP RFC 3261 you can find details about From field and To field. SIP signalling protocol consist of request and reponse messages.
To field: Contain address of recipient of request Example (As email has to address and from address to send email) To: manmohansinghbisht <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From field: Contain address of initiator of request Example (As email has to address and from address to send email) From: "ponrajit" <sips:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;tag=a48s Regards Man Mohan Singh Bisht On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : >Send Sip-implementors mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Sip-implementors digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. From Tag and To Tag - regarding (Raj) > 2. Re: FW: Query on max-forwards counts (Kasturi Narayanan) > 3. Re: Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts (Bogdan > Pintea) > 4. Re: Re-transmission in forking case (Paul Kyzivat) > 5. Re: FW: Query on max-forwards counts (Song, Youngsun) > 6. Re: Only one session in forking case (Paul Kyzivat) > 7. Re: From Tag and To Tag - regarding (Bin Chen) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:57:55 -0800 (PST) > From: Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [Sip-implementors] From Tag and To Tag - regarding >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > >Hello, > > Actually to identify a call, we use call-id. Can anyone please > tell me the importance of FROM tag and TO tag in the SIP messages? I am > really confused on the information related to tag. > > thanks in advance > > with regards > Raj. > > >--------------------------------- >Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:42:43 -0600 > From: "Kasturi Narayanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts >To: sip-implementors <[email protected]>, ysong > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > >The approach suggested by Robert Sparks solves the problem but creates an >un-necessary hop when the sender knows for sure that it going to be dropped by >the Receiver (since it is sending with mf=0). > >Kasturi > >-----Original Message----- > From: Song, Youngsun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:22 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts > >Hi, > >Please see the attached response from Robert Sparks regarding this >query. (FYI, I had also sent him a separate email...) >Per his response, Proxy-B should forward the request to UA-B. > >Thanks to all who has taken the time to respond to my query, >YoungSun > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:12 AM > > To: Song, Youngsun > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts > > > > See page 95, item 3. > > > > You reject when you receive, not before you send. > > You reject when you receive a max-forwards of 0, not when you > > receive a max-forwards of 1. > > > > RjS > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Song, > > >> Youngsun > > >> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:19 AM > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I have a clarification question on the following statement > > in Section > > >> 8.1.1.6 of RFC3261 regarding when a proxy should send a 483 and > > >> whether the number of hops includes the destination hop. > > >> > > >> "The Max-Forwards header field serves to limit the number > > of hops a > > >> request can transit on the way to its destination. It > > consists of an > > >> integer that is decremented by one at each hop. If the > > Max-Forwards > > >> value reaches 0 before the request reaches its > > destination, it will > > >> be rejected with a 483(Too Many Hops) error response." > > >> > > >> > > >> Consider the following flow: (mf=max-forwards) > > >> > > >> > > >> UA-A --- INVITE (mf=2) ---> Proxy-A ---- INVITE (mf=1) > > ---> Proxy-B > > >> ---- INVITE (mf=0) ---> UA-B > > >> > > >> > > >> In the flow above, should Proxy-B forward the INVITE with > > >> max-forwards=0 to UA-B or should it reject the request with 483? > > >> > > >> Thanks for your help in advance, > > >> YoungSun > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:05:49 +0100 > From: Bogdan Pintea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Sip-implementors] Query on > max-forwards counts >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Correct! Only if >- incoming request has mf=0 and >- request should be proxied further >must the Proxy-B generate the 483. > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This is not correct. As per RFC3261 chapter 16.3 bullet 3 and chapter > > 16.6 bullet 3 > > Proxy-B will forward the INVITE with Max-Forwards on zero to UA-B. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ben. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >> As per 3261: it should reject the request with 483. > >> > >> HTH, > >> Sreeram. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:57 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards > >> counts > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Consider the following flow: (mf=max-forwards) > >>> > >>> > >>> UA-A --- INVITE (mf=2) ---> Proxy-A ---- INVITE (mf=1) ---> > >>> Proxy-B ---- INVITE (mf=0) ---> UA-B > >>> > >>> > >>> In the flow above, should Proxy-B forward the INVITE with > >>> max-forwards=0 to UA-B or should it reject the request with 483? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sip-implementors mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > >> > >> > >> The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments > >> to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and > >> may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you > >> are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or > >> copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all > >> copies of this message and any attachments. > >> > >> WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient > >> should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. > >> The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus > >> transmitted by this email. > >> > >> www.wipro.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:17:52 -0500 > From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Re-transmission in forking case >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >No. Each is a separate transaction and gets its own retransmissions. > > Paul > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi, > > when a UA generates an INVITE and forks it to multiple locations, each > > forward can be considered a re-transmission of the same INVITE? Thanks. > > Giancarlo > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:34:58 -0500 > From: "Song, Youngsun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts >To: "Kasturi Narayanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "sip-implementors" > <[email protected]> >Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >If the receiver is a UA not a proxy, the request with max-forwards=0 >will be accepted. > >YoungSun > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kasturi Narayanan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:43 AM > > To: sip-implementors; Song, Youngsun > > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts > > > > The approach suggested by Robert Sparks solves the problem > > but creates an un-necessary hop when the sender knows for > > sure that it going to be dropped by the Receiver (since it is > > sending with mf=0). > > > > Kasturi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Song, Youngsun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:22 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts > > > > Hi, > > > > Please see the attached response from Robert Sparks regarding > > this query. (FYI, I had also sent him a separate email...) > > Per his response, Proxy-B should forward the request to UA-B. > > > > Thanks to all who has taken the time to respond to my query, YoungSun > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:12 AM > > > To: Song, Youngsun > > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts > > > > > > See page 95, item 3. > > > > > > You reject when you receive, not before you send. > > > You reject when you receive a max-forwards of 0, not when > > you receive > > > a max-forwards of 1. > > > > > > RjS > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > Behalf Of Song, > > > >> Youngsun > > > >> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:19 AM > > > >> To: [email protected] > > > >> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts > > > >> > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> I have a clarification question on the following statement > > > in Section > > > >> 8.1.1.6 of RFC3261 regarding when a proxy should send a 483 and > > > >> whether the number of hops includes the destination hop. > > > >> > > > >> "The Max-Forwards header field serves to limit the number > > > of hops a > > > >> request can transit on the way to its destination. It > > > consists of an > > > >> integer that is decremented by one at each hop. If the > > > Max-Forwards > > > >> value reaches 0 before the request reaches its > > > destination, it will > > > >> be rejected with a 483(Too Many Hops) error response." > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Consider the following flow: (mf=max-forwards) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> UA-A --- INVITE (mf=2) ---> Proxy-A ---- INVITE (mf=1) > > > ---> Proxy-B > > > >> ---- INVITE (mf=0) ---> UA-B > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> In the flow above, should Proxy-B forward the INVITE with > > > >> max-forwards=0 to UA-B or should it reject the request with 483? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for your help in advance, > > > >> YoungSun > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:30:20 -0500 > From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Only one session in forking case >To: zhang jw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > >zhang jw wrote: > > hi, > > How to handle multiple 200 responses generated by one invite is decided by > > implementation.If your device can handle multi media, you can accept it and > > there will be 2 seperate sessions. > >Technically, I think what you have in that case is one session with >multiple dialogs. > > Paul > > > On 11/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> I'm desperate because I must write a thesis but I don't understand a > >> thing: > >> > >> In the forking case, with only one Invite, are created multiple dialogs > >> because are generated multiple OK responses by different UAS, but all these > >> dialogs belong to the same session, because the UA will receive only one OK > >> response?. In other words, for each OK response that a UAC receives, a > >> session is created?. Thanks Giancarlo > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:33:10 +0800 > From: "Bin Chen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] From Tag and To Tag - regarding >To: "'Raj'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >Hi, > >A dialog is identified by From tag, plus To tag, plus CALL-ID. >A transaction is identified by branch. > >ABAI > >-----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raj >Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:58 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [Sip-implementors] From Tag and To Tag - regarding > >Hello, > > Actually to identify a call, we use call-id. Can anyone please > tell me the importance of FROM tag and TO tag in the SIP messages? I am > really confused on the information related to tag. > > thanks in advance > > with regards > Raj. > > >--------------------------------- >Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. >_______________________________________________ >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 > > >End of Sip-implementors Digest, Vol 44, Issue 20 >************************************************ _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
