24 Nov
2009
24 Nov
'09
4:09 p.m.
Hello all,
As I could see in the source, we dont follow the RFCs.
If I send an INVITE, kamailio response a Giving a try
It isnt in the RFCs! It is normaly Trying.
I could change it in
-src/modules/tm/t_funcs.c
-line: static str relay_reason_100 = str_init("Giving a try");
I hope you understand what I mean
François BERGANZ
Ingénieur R&D VoIP
Acropolis Telecom
P Pensez à l'Environnement, n'imprimez ce mail que si nécessaire.
24 Nov
24 Nov
4:23 p.m.
BERGANZ François wrote:
As I could see in the source, we don’t follow the
RFCs.
If I send an INVITE, kamailio response a “Giving a try”
It isn’t in the RFCs! It is normaly “Trying”.
In SIP protocol semantics, only the status reply code (100) is relevant.
Although there are conventional reply "reasons" in the RFC as well as
canonical forms, variations on them are not, strictly speaking,
violations of the RFC because they have no material effect on the state
machine.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
26 Nov
26 Nov
10:18 p.m.
El Martes, 24 de Noviembre de 2009, BERGANZ François escribió:
Hello all,
As I could see in the source, we dont follow the RFCs.
If I send an INVITE, kamailio response a Giving a try
It isnt in the RFCs! It is normaly Trying.
I could change it in
-src/modules/tm/t_funcs.c
-line: static str relay_reason_100 = str_init("Giving a try");
That's just a response description, no more. RFC 3261 doesn't state that the
100 response reason must be "Trying", it could be any text (i.e. "your
money
is important for us").
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>
27 Nov
27 Nov
2:43 a.m.
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
That's just a response description, no more. RFC
3261 doesn't state that the
100 response reason must be "Trying", it could be any text (i.e. "your
money
is important for us").
Jajaja. Touche.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
9:27 a.m.
26 nov 2009 kl. 22.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
El Martes, 24 de Noviembre de 2009, BERGANZ François
escribió:
Which also means that any SIP implementation that tries to parse the text is broken.
Only the number is significant.
/O
Hello all,
As I could see in the source, we dont follow the RFCs.
If I send an INVITE, kamailio response a Giving a try
It isnt in the RFCs! It is normaly Trying.
I could change it in
-src/modules/tm/t_funcs.c
-line: static str relay_reason_100 = str_init("Giving a try");
That's just a response description, no more. RFC 3261 doesn't state that the
100 response reason must be "Trying", it could be any text (i.e. "your
money
is important for us"). 
9:43 a.m.
Olle E. Johansson schrieb:
26 nov 2009 kl. 22.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
Yes. Parsing for internal use is broken. But displaying it to the user
might be useful in case of error responses.
regards
klaus
El Martes, 24 de Noviembre de 2009, BERGANZ
François escribió:
Which also means that any SIP implementation that tries to parse the text is broken.
Only the number is significant. Hello all,
As I could see in the source, we don’t follow the RFCs.
If I send an INVITE, kamailio response a “Giving a try”
It isn’t in the RFCs! It is normaly “Trying”.
I could change it in
-src/modules/tm/t_funcs.c
-line: static str relay_reason_100 = str_init("Giving a try");
That's just a response description, no more. RFC 3261 doesn't state that the
100 response reason must be "Trying", it could be any text (i.e. "your
money
is important for us").
10:10 a.m.
27 nov 2009 kl. 09.43 skrev Klaus Darilion:
Olle E. Johansson schrieb:
Absolutely. Phones that display "603" as a message to a phone user is considered
broken (by me, myself and I).
/O :-)
26 nov 2009 kl. 22.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
Yes. Parsing for internal use is broken. But displaying it to the user might be useful in
case of error responses. El Martes, 24 de Noviembre de 2009, BERGANZ
François escribió:
Which also means that any SIP implementation that
tries to parse the text is broken.
Only the number is significant. Hello all,
As I could see in the source, we don’t follow the RFCs.
If I send an INVITE, kamailio response a “Giving a try”
It isn’t in the RFCs! It is normaly “Trying”.
That's just a response description, no more. RFC 3261 doesn't state that
the 100 response reason must be "Trying", it could be any text (i.e. "your
money is important for us").
10:25 a.m.
But in the RFC 3261 §21.1.1 it is 100 Trying
"Giving a try" doesn't exist, as I can see
François BERGANZ
Pensez à l'Environnement, n'imprimez ce mail que si nécessaire.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org] De la part
de Olle E. Johansson
Envoyé : vendredi 27 novembre 2009 10:11
À : Klaus Darilion
Cc : users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Objet : Re: [Kamailio-Users] we don't follow the RFCs!
27 nov 2009 kl. 09.43 skrev Klaus Darilion:
Olle E. Johansson schrieb:
Absolutely. Phones that display "603" as a message to a phone user is considered
broken (by me, myself and I).
/O :-)
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
26 nov 2009 kl. 22.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
Yes. Parsing for internal use is broken. But displaying it to the user might be useful in
case of error responses. El Martes, 24 de Noviembre de 2009, BERGANZ
François escribió:
Which also means that any SIP implementation that
tries to parse the text is broken.
Only the number is significant. Hello all,
As I could see in the source, we don’t follow the RFCs.
If I send an INVITE, kamailio response a “Giving a try”
It isn’t in the RFCs! It is normaly “Trying”.
That's just a response description, no more. RFC 3261 doesn't state that
the 100 response reason must be "Trying", it could be any text (i.e. "your
money is important for us").
10:55 a.m.
27 nov 2009 kl. 10.25 skrev BERGANZ François:
But in the RFC 3261 §21.1.1 it is 100 Trying
"Giving a try" doesn't exist, as I can see
I don't think you understand. We could send "100 Thank you for all the fish"
or "100 go away NOW" and still be RFC-compliant.
The text after the number is not standardized, it's just for your information. There
are many implementations that change it and add some causes, to explain better what
happened and why you're getting an error.
/O
11:11 a.m.
Ok, I understand, but now my question can be: why we don't follow the RFC example
(Trying)?
François BERGANZ
Pensez à l'Environnement, n'imprimez ce mail que si nécessaire.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Olle E. Johansson [mailto:oej@edvina.net]
Envoyé : vendredi 27 novembre 2009 10:56
À : BERGANZ François
Cc : 'Klaus Darilion'; users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Objet : Re: [Kamailio-Users] we don't follow the RFCs!
27 nov 2009 kl. 10.25 skrev BERGANZ François:
But in the RFC 3261 §21.1.1 it is 100 Trying
"Giving a try" doesn't exist, as I can see
I don't think you understand. We could send "100 Thank you for all the fish"
or "100 go away NOW" and still be RFC-compliant.
The text after the number is not standardized, it's just for your information. There
are many implementations that change it and add some causes, to explain better what
happened and why you're getting an error.
/O=
11:16 a.m.
27 nov 2009 kl. 11.11 skrev BERGANZ François:
Ok, I understand, but now my question can be: why we
don't follow the RFC example (Trying)?
Some developer decided this was the SER/OpenSER/Kamailio/SIP-router way of doing a
100 provisional message.
My question is why it is an issue for you?
/O
11:38 a.m.
I have to do a peering with an AS layer2. And it just know the RFC texts!
It don't know the real use of SIP as you could say.
This AS could read Trying, then it want that I send him trying, not 'giving a try'
:-)
François BERGANZ
Pensez à l'Environnement, n'imprimez ce mail que si nécessaire.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Olle E. Johansson [mailto:oej@edvina.net]
Envoyé : vendredi 27 novembre 2009 11:17
À : BERGANZ François
Cc : 'Klaus Darilion'; users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Objet : Re: [Kamailio-Users] we don't follow the RFCs!
27 nov 2009 kl. 11.11 skrev BERGANZ François:
Ok, I understand, but now my question can be: why we
don't follow the RFC example (Trying)?
Some developer decided this was the SER/OpenSER/Kamailio/SIP-router way of doing a
100 provisional message.
My question is why it is an issue for you?
/O=
11:43 a.m.
27 nov 2009 kl. 11.38 skrev BERGANZ François:
I have to do a peering with an AS layer2. And it just
know the RFC texts!
It don't know the real use of SIP as you could say.
This AS could read Trying, then it want that I send him trying, not 'giving a
try' :-)
First, report that application as broken.
Second, fix the source as you suggested, recompile and run happily.
have a nice weekend!
/Olle
1:53 p.m.
On Freitag, 27. November 2009, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Hey Olle,
just a to add (even if it was already added to the bug report), its not
necessary to patch the source. The reason phrase can be changed with a tm
parameter (in kamailio 3.0) or with manual reply sending and t_relay with flag
in 1.5.
Regards,
Henning
I have to do a
peering with an AS layer2. And it just know the RFC texts!
It don't know the real use of SIP as you could say.
This AS could read Trying, then it want that I send him trying, not
'giving a try' :-)
First, report that application as broken.
Second, fix the source as you suggested, recompile and run happily.
2:59 p.m.
2009/11/27 Henning Westerholt <henning.westerholt(a)1und1.de>de>:
just a to add (even if it was already added to the bug
report), its not
necessary to patch the source. The reason phrase can be changed with a tm
parameter (in kamailio 3.0) or with manual reply sending and t_relay with
flag in 1.5.
So for good clients you can send:
"100 Your money is important for us, enjoy a long call"
and for bad clients:
"100 Don't disturb my proxy"
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
1:42 p.m.
2009/11/27 BERGANZ François <francois(a)acropolistelecom.net>et>:
I have to do a peering with an AS layer2. And it just
know the RFC texts!
It don't know the real use of SIP as you could say.
This AS could read Trying, then it want that I send him trying, not 'giving a
try' :-)
Wrong wrong wrong! it must read just 100!
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
1:48 p.m.
On 27.11.2009 13:42 Uhr, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/11/27 BERGANZ François
<francois(a)acropolistelecom.net>et>:
I agree that the reason phrase can be anything.
Anyhow, to please everyone in this world, kamailio 1.5 has a parameter
to t_relay() function that can be used to skip sending internally the
100 reply and that can be done in the config:
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/tm.html#id2530748
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
I have to do a peering with an AS layer2. And it
just know the RFC texts!
It don't know the real use of SIP as you could say.
This AS could read Trying, then it want that I send him trying, not 'giving a
try' :-)
Wrong wrong wrong! it must read just 100!
2:34 p.m.
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/tm.html#id2530755
regards,
Andreas
2009/11/27 BERGANZ François <francois(a)acropolistelecom.net>
I have to do a peering with an AS layer2. And it just
know the RFC texts!
It don't know the real use of SIP as you could say.
This AS could read Trying, then it want that I send him trying, not 'giving
a try' :-)
François BERGANZ
Pensez à l'Environnement, n'imprimez ce mail que si nécessaire.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Olle E. Johansson [mailto:oej@edvina.net]
Envoyé : vendredi 27 novembre 2009 11:17
À : BERGANZ François
Cc : 'Klaus Darilion'; users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Objet : Re: [Kamailio-Users] we don't follow the RFCs!
27 nov 2009 kl. 11.11 skrev BERGANZ François:
Some developer decided this was the
SER/OpenSER/Kamailio/SIP-router way of
doing a 100 provisional message.
My question is why it is an issue for you?
/O=
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Ok, I understand, but now my question can be: why
we don't follow the RFC
example (Trying)?
1:41 p.m.
2009/11/27 BERGANZ François <francois(a)acropolistelecom.net>et>:
Ok, I understand, but now my question can be: why we
don't follow the RFC example (Trying)?
An example in a RFC is *not* a specification, but just an example.
If you inspect the BNF grammar in RFC 3261 for 100 response you will
realize that it allows (as any other response code) *any* reason text.
That's all.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
5272
days inactive
5275
days old
18 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Alex Balashov -
Andreas Heise -
BERGANZ François -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Henning Westerholt -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Klaus Darilion -
Olle E. Johansson