Hi, RFC 3398 (mapping SIP/ISUP) states that SIP 480 is mapped to ISUP 18: 480 Temporarily unavailable --> 18 No user responding
but at the same time it states that ISUP 18 is mapped to SIP 408: 18 no user responding --> 408 Request Timeout Why? Note that ISUP 19 is also mapped to SIP 480: 19 no answer from the user --> 480 Temporarily unavailable Then, shouldn't 480 be mapped to 19? In this way it would be a 1:1 relationship. Also, 480 doesn't mean the same as 408 (even if both are the worst SIP status codes as they are vaguely defined and are ambiguous). I'm experimenting interoperability problems due to this exact issue (480 -> 18 -> 408). Thanks for any comment. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
