El Tuesday 03 June 2008 14:31:23 Paul Kyzivat escribió:
> I can't decide where to reply in this thread, so I'll just do it here.
> (I've read a bunch of replies.)
>
> There definitely are problems with 6xx - partly defintional and partly
> inappropriate use. But IMO there is need of a way to express stronger
> rejections than is possible with the existing 4xx responses.
Yes sure, the problem is that some phones and gateways sometimes use 6XX when
they could use a 4XX.
> It may well be that the user at that one extension noticed the caller id
> was that nasty bill collector that he doesn't want to talk to. So he
> pushed the "reject this call totally" button, and that resulted in the
> 6xx response. Not sending the call to VM is exactly what was intended.
Ok, but imagine my case. In calls from PSTN if the called returns 4XX/6XX I
want to forward the request to a media server to reproduce an early
announcement ("the number you are calling is not available now"). The called
shouldn't have the possibility of avoiding this forwarding to the caller
since it's a provider decission, non him decission. But 6XX breaks the
provider if he is using a proxy and not a B2BUA.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
