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.
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.
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 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.
26 nov 2009 kl. 22.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
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").
Which also means that any SIP implementation that tries to parse the text is broken. Only the number is significant.
/O
Olle E. Johansson schrieb:
26 nov 2009 kl. 22.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
El Martes, 24 de Noviembre de 2009, BERGANZ François escribió:
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").
Which also means that any SIP implementation that tries to parse the text is broken. Only the number is significant.
Yes. Parsing for internal use is broken. But displaying it to the user might be useful in case of error responses.
regards klaus
27 nov 2009 kl. 09.43 skrev Klaus Darilion:
Olle E. Johansson schrieb:
26 nov 2009 kl. 22.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
El Martes, 24 de Noviembre de 2009, BERGANZ François escribió:
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").
Which also means that any SIP implementation that tries to parse the text is broken. Only the number is significant.
Yes. Parsing for internal use is broken. But displaying it to the user might be useful in case of error responses.
Absolutely. Phones that display "603" as a message to a phone user is considered broken (by me, myself and I).
/O :-)
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@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@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:
26 nov 2009 kl. 22.18 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
El Martes, 24 de Noviembre de 2009, BERGANZ François escribió:
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").
Which also means that any SIP implementation that tries to parse the text is broken. Only the number is significant.
Yes. Parsing for internal use is broken. But displaying it to the user might be useful in case of error responses.
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@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
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
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@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=
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
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@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=
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
On Freitag, 27. November 2009, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
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.
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
2009/11/27 Henning Westerholt henning.westerholt@1und1.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"
2009/11/27 BERGANZ François francois@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' :-)
Wrong wrong wrong! it must read just 100!
On 27.11.2009 13:42 Uhr, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/11/27 BERGANZ François francois@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' :-)
Wrong wrong wrong! it must read just 100!
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
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/tm.html#id2530755
regards, Andreas
2009/11/27 BERGANZ François francois@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@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=
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
2009/11/27 BERGANZ François francois@acropolistelecom.net:
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.
-
Alex Balashov -
Andreas Heise -
BERGANZ François -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Henning Westerholt -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Klaus Darilion -
Olle E. Johansson