I agree with you that the definitions of the codes are not entirely
clear. IMO 404 is not an appropriate response for a known and supported
AOR for which no device is currently registered.
Paul
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Tuesday 04 March 2008 19:07:14 Paul Kyzivat escribió:
>> 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.
>
> Thanks, I agree 100% with you, but the fact is that returning a 404 to a
> gateway produces an unexpected behaviour in the caller (its PSTN provider
> tell him in early media that the callee number doesn't exist).
>
> The question here (and I'm know more people wondering the same) is how to
> differenciate a non existing user and an existing but not registered user. A
> registrar will reply "404" in both cases, but 404 produces the wrong real
> behaviour explained before.
>
> RFC 3261 says:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 404 Not Found
>
> The server has definitive information that the user does not exist at
> the domain specified in the Request-URI. This status is also
> returned if the domain in the Request-URI does not match any of the
> domains handled by the recipient of the request.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The question is: does a non registered user "exist" or not?
>
>
> Thanks a lot for you comments.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
