A UAS should not in general know whether it has been called by a gateway
or some other sip device. And so it should not be adjusting its
responses based on the kind of thing it thinks is calling.
The response returned by the UAS should best reflect the condition at
the UAS. The purpose of specs like 3398 is to specify how the sip codes
should be mapped to/from the pstn by gateways, not to specify how other
sip devices should behave.
Paul
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Tuesday 04 March 2008 17:02:25 Paul Kyzivat escribió:
>> If you mean the callee isn't registered in the sip sense, because the
>> phone isn't connected, but you know the number is assigned to someone,
>> then IMO 404 is not the right response.
>
> Yes, I completely agree with that.
>
>
>> A better response is 480.
>
> Why "480"? The RFC 3398 does this mapping for 480 code:
>
> 480 Temporarily unavailable --> 18 No user responding
>
> Is it the best choice in the PSTN world?
>
>
>> And
>> this has nothing to do with 3398.
>
> Why do you say "this has nothing to do with 3398"? My question is with SIP
> code is the best reply to send to a PSTN gateway when the SIP user is not
> registered (but it does exists). Related to it there is a RFC 3398, so...
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
