On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Robert Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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)
IMO, RFC 4235 establishes a relationship between the envelope and the content: Section 3.4. Subscription Duration "In that case, when the dialogs terminate, so too does the subscription." -- Victor Pascual Ávila _______________________________________________ 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
