Subject: RE: [Sipping] 488 vs 606

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:06:45 +0530

Comments inlined.

-Sreeram

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:33 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sipping] 488 vs 606

Hi,

I have a question on the usage of 488 vs 606 response. Kindly let me
know in the situation explained below which one is more appropriate.

Two UA's (A & B) establish a voice session, but after a while one of
them (say B) decides to change to FAX mode and hence sends a Re-INVITE
with T38 SDP.But User Agent 'A' does not support incoming T38 Re-INVITE
(FAX SDP) for any call or any user 

>> Can you make here more clearer.you mean to say ur UA will not support
Re-invites from any user?.if it is a UA it should >>be able to support
re-invites also. Can you be more clear in your question.

and hence needs to respond with a 488 or 606 response.

>>if your question is UA will not support re-invites and how should be
the behaviour than , the anwer is 606.
>> In warning header: warn-text you give UA will not support reinvites
..please iniate a new call..or some thing like that

In this situation, what response would be more appropriate to reject the
Re-INVITE.
>> 606.

Please note that the request sent by UA 'B' cannot be serviced by any
other UAs as the fax data is available only on 'A'.

>>Ok

Thank you,
Srini

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

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