RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05
Robert Sparks <rsparks@dynamicsoft.com> Tue, 25 September 2001 20:03 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13645 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:03:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21197; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:37:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21170 for <sip@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:36:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail1.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.40.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12993 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:36:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com (dyn-exch-001 [63.113.44.7]) by mail1.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id f8PJZM8P015813; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:35:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <TRZNF9A9>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:36:22 -0400
Message-ID: <9BF66EBF6BEFD942915B4D4D45C051F338E61D@DYN-TX-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rsparks@dynamicsoft.com>
To: 'Sarvi Shanmugham' <sarvi@cisco.com>, sip@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:36:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
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:sarvi@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 11:57 AM > To: sip@ietf.org > 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
- [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05 Sarvi Shanmugham
- RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05 Robert Sparks
- Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05 Sarvi Shanmugham
- RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05 Robert Sparks
- RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05 Tom-PT Taylor