rsw2111 <rsw2...@columbia.edu> writes: > I've been debating this with someone, and I'd appreciate some outside input. > below is the scenario: > > A -------- B > INVITE -> with no supported header > <------100 > <------18X > <------200OK with no refresher/session-expires or min-se > ACK ----> > <------INVITE with Session-Expires: 3700;refresher=uac and Min-SE: 600 > 480 -----> > > We suspect that the re-INVITE is what's causing the 480.
Well, clearly the re-INVITE is causing the 480. The question is whether the Session-Expires is causing the 480. RFC 3261 says: 21.4.18 480 Temporarily Unavailable The callee's end system was contacted successfully but the callee is currently unavailable (for example, is not logged in, logged in but in a state that precludes communication with the callee, or has activated the "do not disturb" feature). The response MAY indicate a better time to call in the Retry-After header field. The user could also be available elsewhere (unbeknownst to this server). The reason phrase SHOULD indicate a more precise cause as to why the callee is unavailable. This value SHOULD be settable by the UA. Status 486 (Busy Here) MAY be used to more precisely indicate a particular reason for the call failure. This status is also returned by a redirect or proxy server that recognizes the user identified by the Request-URI, but does not currently have a valid forwarding location for that user. As it says, does the reason phrase indicate a more precise cause as to why the callee is unavailable? Are re-INVITEs without Session-Expires operating as you'd expect? As Paul says, if A doesn't want to handle Session-Expires, it can simply ignore it and respond 200. My suspicion is that there is some other cause here... Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
