Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:36:21 -0400

If only we could...

No. Non-INVITE transactions do not pend. They must
complete immediately. If you've been following the
open issues threads, you'll have seen the suggestion
to kill off provisional responses (other than a 100
Trying to quench retransmissions) to non-INVITES.

This feature of the non-INVITE transaction model is
why we have the implicit subscribe and the separate
NOTIFY instead of just waiting for the triggered
action to complete before sending the final response
to the REFER (on a historical note, that was the original
proposal of over a year ago).

RjS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarvi Shanmugham [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 11:57 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question/concern in the blind transfer case.
> 
> As per the current spec,
>     The TRANSFEREE responds with a Ack 202 to the REFER method, before
> the attempt to the Transfer target is initiated.
> 
>     The next possible message from the Transferee to the Transferor is
> NOTIFY(200 OK) and this is when the Transfer target 
> accepts(picks up the
> phone).
> 
>      In a blind transfer, where I want to release the 
> Transferor, Ack202
> "may be" premature, and NOTIFY(200 OK) may be too late.
> 
>      Can the Transferee gateway, send an intermediate NOTIFY(180 OK)
> when the transfer target is "ringing". This could be a more reliable
> place to release the Transferee's line, than Ack 202
> 
> Any thoughts,
> Sarvi
> 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip