Re: ISUP tunneling
"Adam B. Roach" <Adam.Roach@Ericsson.com> Tue, 10 August 1999 19:37 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-confctrl>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id MAA06860 for confctrl-outgoing; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA06849 for <confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu>; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gwu.ericy.com (gwu.ericy.com [208.196.3.162]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA29924 for <confctrl@ISI.EDU>; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mr4.exu.ericsson.se (mr4u.ericy.com [208.238.116.99]) by gwu.ericy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17087 for <confctrl@ISI.EDU>; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 14:35:12 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from newman.exu.ericsson.se (newman.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.10.50]) by mr4.exu.ericsson.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12595 for <confctrl@ISI.EDU>; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 14:35:12 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from b04a24.exu.ericsson.se (b04a24 [138.85.60.124]) by newman.exu.ericsson.se (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA11141; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 14:35:11 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from exuadam@localhost) by b04a24.exu.ericsson.se (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA25600; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 14:35:10 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199908101935.OAA25600@b04a24.exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: ISUP tunneling
To: Jorge.Sanchez@ebc.ericsson.se
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 14:35:10 -0500
Cc: Adam.Roach@Ericsson.com, confctrl@ISI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <37AA929C.1D907168@ebc.ericsson.se> from "Sanchez Jorge" at Aug 6, 99 09:45:32 am
From: "Adam B. Roach" <Adam.Roach@Ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu
Precedence: bulk
>I have a question regarding draft "ISUP parameters expected in SIP >messages" ><draft-roach-sip-isup-parameters-00.txt>. You describe that ISUP >messages >can be expected in a CANCEL or BYE request. I suppose that all messages >tunneled >onto SIP are carried in Content-Encoding header field, and this header >is defined in >SIP as being not applicable for CANCEL and BYE methods. What am I >missing here? Nothing; I overlooked this fact when I put the draft together. Thanks for pointing this out. I will mention, in future versions of the draft, that the use of ISUP tunneling for this application adds the possibility of having Content-Encoding headers on BYE and CANCEL messages. Henning, Jonathan, et al: is there a reason the Content-Encoding was marked as N/A on BYE and CANCEL? Could this be added to 2543 when all the other bugfixes are put in? -- Adam Roach, Ericsson Inc. | Ph: +1 972 583 7594 | 1010 E. Arapaho, MS L-04 adam.roach@ericsson.com | Fax: +1 972 669 0154 | Richardson, TX 75081 USA
- ISUP tunneling Sanchez Jorge
- Re: ISUP tunneling Adam B. Roach
- Re: ISUP tunneling Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: ISUP tunneling Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: ISUP tunneling Adam B. Roach
- Re: ISUP tunneling Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: ISUP tunneling Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: ISUP tunneling Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: ISUP tunneling Scott Petrack
- Re: call termination (was ISUP tunneling) Igor Slepchin
- Re: call termination (was ISUP tunneling) Adam B. Roach