On Nov 13, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2008/11/13 Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I understand the reasoning behind 481 but I am a *bit* troubled by
it. It is
a distinct semantic for 481, though one that is unambiguous. But
481 already
has three distinct meanings, so adding another doesn't seem like a
great
idea.
I agree, imagine if you sends such a SUBSCRIBE but as refresh
SUBSCRIBE (in-dialog request), and you get 481. What does it mean?:
a) The current SUBSCRIBE dialog doesn't exist anymore.
b) The indicated dialog in the "Event: dialog;call_id=xxx,to_tag=xxx"
doesn't exist.
It might be a bit of a stretched analogy, but in this particular
situation:
The response to the subscribe definitely talks about the subscription
usage (its the envelope)
Information about the pointed-to dialog ending is carried in NOTIFYs
(its the stuff in the envelope)
?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
