Yes, I agree now. There is no standard that mentions about accepting unsolicited NOTIFY. The RFC 3265 mentions establishing subscription using non SIP mechanism, the NOTIFY should always be received in an existing dialog.
On 2/27/07, Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a key difference between sending a NOTIFY in a subscription > established using non-sip means and sending an unsolicited NOTIFY. In > the former case there must still be a dialog within which the NOTIFY is > sent. In the latter case the NOTIFY is sent out of dialog. > > Paul > > Vikram Chhibber wrote: > > Yes, RFC 3265 does hints enabling subscriptions using non SIP > > mechanism. Many Voice mail application servers do implement this > > mechanism. Usually, this is more suitable for integrating application > > servers as part of your own network where the application servers know > > where to send NOTIFY which is in most of the cases a configured > > information. This should not be allowed for end-points outside the > > networks. > > > > On 2/23/07, Brett Tate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> 1) Cisco is using "unsolicited Notify" for MWI or > >>> SIP trunk. Is there any case to use this ? > >> For "unsolicited", no. However rfc3265 allows non sip messaging to > >> enable the subscription. Thus if a phone wants to support such behavior > >> for some event packages, they should allow the NOTIFY for the package > >> without the typical related SUBSCRIBE or REFER. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
