If you consider "Reject" to be "Do Not Disturb" then this issue is touched upon in BLISS...
https://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/bliss/draft-elwell-bliss-dnd-01.txt Of course, your interpretation of "Reject" may be different. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo > Sent: 04 March 2008 14:50 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Sip-implementors] SIP "Reject" codes: > Why"draft-worley-6xx-considered-harmful" (441 Decline) is > stilla draft? > > Hi, SIP response codes for rejecting a call is a pain, each > implementator does a different thing. RFC 3261 doesn't help a > lot with the ambiguity of > 480/486/603 codes. > > In fact, when the user rejects explicitely a call (by > pressing "Reject" > button) some UA's generate a "480 Temporarily Unavailable" > (as SJphone, Thomson S2030), others generate a "486 Busy > Here" (as X-Lite, Siemens), and others a "603 Decline" (as Twinkle). > > Personally I don't understant why "486 User Busy" is used for > rejecting a call. > Also, the use of "6XX" is not good since the UAS cancels the > other ringing UAS (in case of parallel forking) what it's not > good in many cases. > > So there is a "draft" [1] suggesting the use of "441 > Decline". IMHO this MUST exist in the original RFC 3261. The > absence of it has generated the actuall situation in which > each implementator rejects a call in a different way. > > So... why this draft is still a draft? > > draft-worley-6xx-considered-harmful > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-worley-6xx-considered-harmful-00 > > Thanks for any explanation. > > > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > 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
