Dear All, Please let me know what should be the exact call flow when user select Airplane mode ON when calling to other name.
Precondition: UE registered with IMS server over LTE Thanks, Surya On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:30 PM, < sip-implementors-requ...@lists.cs.columbia.edu> wrote: > Send Sip-implementors mailing list submissions to > sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > sip-implementors-requ...@lists.cs.columbia.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sip-implementors-ow...@lists.cs.columbia.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Sip-implementors digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. ACD (Average call duration) and its relation with RTCP > (Prasanth Sylvester) > 2. Re: Non-dialog NOTIFY for a SUBSCRIPTION with "Event: > presence" (My Gmail) > 3. Re: ACD (Average call duration) and its relation with RTCP > (My Gmail) > 4. Re: Non-dialog NOTIFY for a SUBSCRIPTION with "Event: > presence" (Paul Kyzivat) > 5. Maximum allowed length of branch parameter in Via (Tarun Gupta) > 6. Re: Maximum allowed length of branch parameter in Via (Brett Tate) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:08:49 +0530 > From: Prasanth Sylvester <prasanth.sylves...@outlook.com> > To: "sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu" > <sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu> > Subject: [Sip-implementors] ACD (Average call duration) and its > relation with RTCP > Message-ID: <blu183-w8443141c85a66fa2380e4494...@phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi Team, > Good day,In past we were on TDM & here is the connectivity,International > Carrier -(sip)-> SBC -(sip)-> Softswitch -[tdm] ->(MSS/MGW)& now we have > moved that link to IP/sip; & we observe the ACD (Average call duration) has > really come down; > When we have enabled rtcp on SBC, we observe there in an improvement in > ACD; (Enabled it on SBC & MSS);Signaling path is SBC-> Softswitch -> MSS > RTP path is SBC -> MGW > Is there any relation of RTCP improving ACD, though RTCP only provides > statistical information. > > Sylvester Skype/GTalk ID: framedrelay > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:11:31 +0530 > From: My Gmail <dheerajmaho...@gmail.com> > To: pratik patel <pratik.b.pa...@elitecore.com> > Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Non-dialog NOTIFY for a SUBSCRIPTION > with "Event: presence" > Message-ID: <84ac00c1-05d6-4e1c-9388-b3cf61e91...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > This is not possible. Please refer RFC > 6665, section 4.1.3: > > Thanks and Regards > Dheeraj Kumar > > Sent from iPhone > > > On 26-Jul-2016, at 9:42 AM, pratik patel <pratik.b.pa...@elitecore.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Is it possible to send Non-dialog NOTIFY for SUBSCRIPTION request with > "Event:presence"? > > > > i.e 1) Let a SIP client(3001) SUBSCRIBE to get "presence" status of SIP > client(3002) with call-id="1234" and cseq="1 SUBSCRIBE". > > > > 2) SIP client(3002) PUBLISH it's presence status, so presence server > send NOTIFY request to SIP client(3001). > > > > So here Is it possible to send NOTIFY with different call-id and cseq? > Will SIP client(3001) accept the NOTIFY request with different call-id and > cseq? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Pratik > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:14:34 +0530 > From: My Gmail <dheerajmaho...@gmail.com> > To: Prasanth Sylvester <prasanth.sylves...@outlook.com> > Cc: "sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu" > <sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu> > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] ACD (Average call duration) and its > relation with RTCP > Message-ID: <c21d7915-abcc-4579-bc64-675eb350d...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Their is no connection between rtcp and ACD but it could be possible their > might be some device which disconnect the call in the absence of rtcp. But > that vary from device to device. > > Thanks and Regards > Dheeraj Kumar > > Sent from iPhone > > > On 26-Jul-2016, at 11:08 PM, Prasanth Sylvester < > prasanth.sylves...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Team, > > Good day,In past we were on TDM & here is the connectivity,International > Carrier -(sip)-> SBC -(sip)-> Softswitch -[tdm] ->(MSS/MGW)& now we have > moved that link to IP/sip; & we observe the ACD (Average call duration) has > really come down; > > When we have enabled rtcp on SBC, we observe there in an improvement in > ACD; (Enabled it on SBC & MSS);Signaling path is SBC-> Softswitch -> MSS > RTP path is SBC -> MGW > > Is there any relation of RTCP improving ACD, though RTCP only provides > statistical information. > > > > Sylvester Skype/GTalk ID: framedrelay > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:22:45 -0400 > From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Non-dialog NOTIFY for a SUBSCRIPTION > with "Event: presence" > Message-ID: <18baad69-d825-9ce8-977f-15e270b3b...@alum.mit.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 7/26/16 1:41 PM, My Gmail wrote: > > This is not possible. Please refer RFC > > 6665, section 4.1.3: > > It *is possible*. (And it is *done*.) But it is contrary to 6665, and > (arguably) to 3265. > > Thanks, > Paul > > > Thanks and Regards > > Dheeraj Kumar > > > > Sent from iPhone > > > >> On 26-Jul-2016, at 9:42 AM, pratik patel <pratik.b.pa...@elitecore.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Is it possible to send Non-dialog NOTIFY for SUBSCRIPTION request with > "Event:presence"? > >> > >> i.e 1) Let a SIP client(3001) SUBSCRIBE to get "presence" status of SIP > client(3002) with call-id="1234" and cseq="1 SUBSCRIBE". > >> > >> 2) SIP client(3002) PUBLISH it's presence status, so presence > server send NOTIFY request to SIP client(3001). > >> > >> So here Is it possible to send NOTIFY with different call-id and cseq? > Will SIP client(3001) accept the NOTIFY request with different call-id and > cseq? > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Pratik > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sip-implementors mailing list > >> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 03:15:54 +0000 > From: Tarun Gupta <tarun.gu...@ericsson.com> > To: "sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu" > <sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu> > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Maximum allowed length of branch parameter > in Via > Message-ID: > <58ce069f184f194b986305b59767ee269d2...@esessmb105.ericsson.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi > > Is there any normative reference in relation of maximum allowed length of > Via branch parameter. One of our vendors is sending a very long branch > parameter and resultantly the SIP message is being rejected with a 400 > response. We need to support this behavior with any normative references. > > Regards > Tarun Gupta > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:55:26 -0400 > From: Brett Tate <br...@broadsoft.com> > To: Tarun Gupta <tarun.gu...@ericsson.com>, > sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Maximum allowed length of branch > parameter in Via > Message-ID: <379603d9c44ac8f0e96734a9e4c80...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > Is there any normative reference in relation of maximum > > allowed length of Via branch parameter. One of our vendors > > is sending a very long branch parameter and resultantly > > the SIP message is being rejected with a 400 response. We > > need to support this behavior with any normative references. > > There is no maximum excluding potentially being restricted by maximum > message size which is discussed within RFC 3261 section 18.1.1. > > RFC 3261 8.1.17 ABNF for via-branch and token indicate no maximum size. > > The following RFC 3261 8.1.17 snippet also indicates that the precise > format of the branch (excluding magic cookie and need to be globally > unique) is implementation-defined. > > "The branch ID inserted by an element compliant with this > specification MUST always begin with the characters "z9hG4bK". These > 7 characters are used as a magic cookie (7 is deemed sufficient to > ensure that an older RFC 2543 implementation would not pick such a > value), so that servers receiving the request can determine that the > branch ID was constructed in the fashion described by this > specification (that is, globally unique). Beyond this requirement, > the precise format of the branch token is implementation-defined." > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > End of Sip-implementors Digest, Vol 29, Issue 16 > ************************************************ > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
