Re: [splices] INVOKE Actions Scope

"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <> Mon, 18 July 2011 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A0D21F8804 for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.342
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.342 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hEUgotTVtO-Y for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FE821F87FA for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EADeII06HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABSp3J3sDkCmjKFXV8EmASLUw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,219,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="291240787"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2011 21:17:11 -0400
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2011 21:10:00 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([::1]) with mapi; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:17:11 -0400
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <>
To: "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <>, Cullen Jennings <>, "" <>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:12:40 -0400
Thread-Topic: [splices] INVOKE Actions Scope
Thread-Index: Acww/2lIInU16D1MQoqzcynyzVKFbgQbxviAAGhnjjcAZ0TGcAAOpRfs
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [splices] INVOKE Actions Scope
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Loosely-coupled SIP Devices \(splices\) working group discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:17:13 -0000

From: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)

"A response of this type [6xx] not only rejects the call but also
   requires the termination of all attempts to route the call to
   alternative destinations "

If a telemarketer is calling me and I want to decline his call, then this is exactly what I want.
Why do you think that this is a bad thing to do?

If a telemarketer is calling, what you *really* want is response "1313 Make Caller's Head Explode".

But in the case where what you want to communicate is that *you* don't want
to handle the call.  As there may be forks upstream of your UA and your PBX,
all you can know is that there are no destinations *within your PBX* that should not
take the call.  It is impossible for you to know that there are *no* appropriate destinations
anywhere upstream, as you don't know what all the upstream forks are (absent History-Info).

In practice, the situation is even worse, as many phones have a "Decline Call" button that sends
a 603 response.  But if voicemail is implemented by the sensible means of having the VM system
be a lower-priority fork, the 603 prevents the call from going to voicemail.