From: =?utf-8?q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
It is true that the various error codes are not clearly defined. 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. One reason is to reject the call without returning to the caller an explicit indication that the call has been rejected by the callee. 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. That is the point of the draft -- that 6xx codes are harmful and should all be replaced by 4xx codes. That is independent of the the fact that many of the codes are poorly defined. So there is a "draft" [1] suggesting the use of "441 Decline". IMHO this MUST exist in the original RFC 3261. Sadly, it does not exist in RFC 3261. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
