El Viernes, 7 de Noviembre de 2008, Rohan Mahy escribió: > Hi, > > The UA should respond with a 481. In the case of an out of dialog > request the *meaning* of the response in this context is easy to > understand. A receiving UA realizes that it referred to some dialog > that does not exist. There are far too few response codes for us to > create a new one in this situation, and it is unlikely that an > automaton will be able to recover from this error if it has a > different code.
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you, 481 is an enough good response in this case, but I'd really prefer if it was specified in RFC 4235 (it doesn't appear at all). Thanks a lot. > On Oct 25, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > > This SUBSCRIBE arrives to Alice's UA which is not aware of that > > dialog. Which > > response should it reply? The flow suggests "481 Call/Transaction > > doesn't > > exist", but... is it correct? > > > > AFAIK, a 481 should be replied when an *in-dialog* request arrives > > to an UAS > > which is not aware of that dialog. But in the above case we have an > > *initial* > > request and the 481 refers to the specific dialog in the "Event" > > header. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
