From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If the NOTIFY arrives out of dialog then I don't think 481 is a suitable response, unless we also want to overload it further to mean "this should have been in a dialog".
Well, I take 481 to mean "This request presupposes the existence of a dialog, dialog usage, subscription, or whatnot (as appropriate for the request), but the requited whatnot does not exist, and so I cannot process the request." That seems to be the common meaning among its various uses. If the recipient is *expecting* to see the NOTIFY, I don't see it as a problem that the two UAs would treat the NOTIFY as establishing a dialog (presumably within which later NOTIFYs in the subscription would arrive), even if that's not strictly within the current standards. And of course, the sender, who is sending based on some logic other than having a dialog, may not treat a 481 as an indication that it should stop doing this. I take it as a given that if a UA sends a NOTIFY, the receipt of a 481 response is evidence that the UA should send no more NOTIFYs of that variety, even if the UA previously thought it was supposed to send them. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
