RE: [reSIProcate] Sending 183 with SDP body
We actually are needing RFC 3262 functionality for our system, so 100rel
will be present.
Jason -- thanks for letting me know that you're working on this. Can't wait
to use it. I'm pretty unhappy with our current workaround (not using DUM).
Thanks,
- Jeremy -
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 6:11 AM
> To: Jason Fischl; Jeremy Geras
> Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] Sending 183 with SDP body
>
> Ah - the inbound INVITE had an Supported: 100rel header. I
> should work if this header isn't present (ie. UAS_Offer state).
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jason.fischl@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:jason.fischl@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> > Of Jason Fischl
> > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 12:15 AM
> > To: Jeremy Geras
> > Cc: Scott Godin; resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] Sending 183 with SDP body
> >
> > I have worked on the reliable provisional aspects of the UAC state
> > machine. Have it mostly done and partially tested. It should get
> > checked in within a month.
> >
> > On 7/9/06, Jeremy Geras <jgeras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I am using the SVN head (rev 6364)...
> > >
> > > Looking at ServerInviteSession.cxx, line 266, provideAnswer(..), I
> > see
> > > the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > case UAS_OfferReliable:
> > > // send1XX-answer, timer::1xx
> > > transition(UAS_FirstEarlyReliable);
> > > break;
> > >
> > > Looking at this, and looking at the state machine diagrams in the
> > docs
> > > folder, I'm guessing the intention was to actually have the stack
> > send
> > > the 1xx at this point and that the implementation of this
> just isn't
> > > completed yet?
> > >
> > > If that's the case -- anyone working on this now?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > - Jeremy -
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 3:56 PM
> > > > To: 'Jeremy Geras'; resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] Sending 183 with SDP body
> > > >
> > > > I'm pretty sure this working in the SVN head version. What
> version
> > > > are you using?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of
> > > > Jeremy Geras
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 9:18 PM
> > > > To: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: [reSIProcate] Sending 183 with SDP body
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Using DUM, is it possible to send a 183 with SDP body?
> > > >
> > > > It looks like it's invalid to do sis->provideAnswer(..) followed
> by
> > > > sis->provisional(183)...
> > > >
> > > > Is there some other way that I'm overlooking?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > - Jeremy -
> > > >
> > > > Jeremy Geras
> > > > Software Developer,
> > > > NewHeights Software
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > > > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> > >
>