[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE or subscription usage? (was RE: SIP INFO)
- To: aayush bhatnagar <abhatnagar192006 at gmail.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at cisco.com>
- Subject: Re: [Sip] Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE or subscription usage? (was RE: SIP INFO)
- From: "Doken, Serhad" <sdoken at qualcomm.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:31:47 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Cc: SIP IETF <SIP at ietf.org>, Brett Tate <brett at broadsoft.com>
- Delivered-to: sip at core3.amsl.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=sdoken at qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1237879913; x=1269415913; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version:x-ironport-av; z=From:=20"Doken,=20Serhad"=20<sdoken at qualcomm.com>|To:=20 aayush=20bhatnagar=20<abhatnagar192006 at gmail.com>,=0D=0A =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20Paul=20Kyzivat=0D=0A=09<pkyzivat@ cisco.com>|CC:=20SIP=20IETF=20<SIP at ietf.org>,=20Brett=20T ate=20<brett at broadsoft.com>|Date:=20Tue,=2024=20Mar=20200 9=2000:31:47=20-0700|Subject:=20RE:=20[Sip]=20Is=20REFER =20within=20dialog=20part=20of=20INVITE=20or=20subscripti on=0D=0A=09usage?=20(was=20RE:=20SIP=20INFO) |Thread-Topic:=20[Sip]=20Is=20REFER=20within=20dialog=20p art=20of=20INVITE=20or=20subscription=0D=0A=09usage?=20(w as=20RE:=20SIP=20INFO)|Thread-Index:=20AcmsMNuOBsZsXKO0Tz +pmfKYiD2r+AAIHFtw|Message-ID:=20<ED88AAAE8B3D764B9FD8558 DE1775B69139274F553 at NASANEXMB09.na.qualcomm.com> |References:=20<24ACC38D-8B7D-46E6-B767-73A33F6C9266 at stan dardstrack.com>=0D=0A=09<49C79CFD.1010408 at cisco.com>=0D =0A=09<9B2A061A1137254BBE4F4B2CD843646A10BFF48DF0 at mbx02.c itservers.local>=0D=0A=09<1237853234.16613.41.camel at victo ria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com>=0D=0A=09<49C83831.7010102@ cisco.com>=0D=0A=20<abcc59880903232030r413b6856q7c77cf68d f7ca564 at mail.gmail.com>|In-Reply-To:=20<abcc5988090323203 0r413b6856q7c77cf68df7ca564 at mail.gmail.com> |Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en-US |X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage: =20en-US|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-as cii"|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |MIME-Version:=201.0|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5 300,2777,5562"=3B=20a=3D"16526627"; bh=Z6zk7JfEK7i0ReCu3wtXsCvfEysryNbeebUQ1WQqGNE=; b=ALG2JhH1etfOzceCC/W0nUP5itImHc86NMNU4Kg4Vys2KPohDdVtiWDa nGXbv75YZmWBXBKFq0nftS8p/HykuiJ5Aj2QD7eKp/Lbx9HQ1Y35NZwGi NFZPCUtJVXB8wIWrUcTYgByINyDVUWIEux35m7GCSJiEdQH9O1HhGZixR g=;
- In-reply-to: <abcc59880903232030r413b6856q7c77cf68df7ca564 at mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
- List-help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <24ACC38D-8B7D-46E6-B767-73A33F6C9266 at standardstrack.com> <49C79CFD.1010408 at cisco.com> <9B2A061A1137254BBE4F4B2CD843646A10BFF48DF0 at mbx02.citservers.local> <1237853234.16613.41.camel at victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C83831.7010102 at cisco.com> <abcc59880903232030r413b6856q7c77cf68df7ca564 at mail.gmail.com>
- Thread-index: AcmsMNuOBsZsXKO0Tz+pmfKYiD2r+AAIHFtw
- Thread-topic: [Sip] Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE or subscription usage? (was RE: SIP INFO)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> aayush bhatnagar
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:30 PM
> To: Paul Kyzivat
> Cc: SIP IETF; Brett Tate
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE or
> subscription usage? (was RE: SIP INFO)
>
> REFER if placed within the scope of the existing dialog usage of
> INVITE will reuse its dialog usage, and create an implicit
> subscription for the refer event package at the recipient. However, if
> the recipient chooses to reject the in dialog REFER request, the
> communication established by the INVITE should not be affected. Such a
> rejection scenario implies that the call transfer failed..however the
> existing active call should not be torn down.
>
> REFER if sent outside the scope of any exisiting dialog will behave as
> a dialog creating request and will establish a subscription at the
> recipient as described above. This subscription is only used to notify
> the status of the sip session referral to the originator and is
> seperate from any other subscribe usage that may have existed at the
> recipient.
One can send a out of dialog, norefersub REFER and no dialog is established at the recipient. Only an implicit subscription is created and a NTFY may be sent or not sent at all.
>
> As far as accessing the referred resource is concerned...using the
> method parameter, it depends upon the business logic of the recipient
> of the REFER request. You may send a REFER to a conferencing server
> with a method INVITE to invite a user to join a conference. A method
> parameter with the value BYE would imply removal from the conference
> by the server and so on.
>
> I dont think you can include a SUBSCRIBE in the method parameter of
> the REFER request. You have no way of telling the event package usage
> of the subscription to the recipient, as the event header cannot be
It should be possible to do Refer-To: sip:serhad at doken.com;method=SUBSCRIBE?Event=presence asking REFER receiver to send me a SUBSCRIBE in order to find out about my presence.
> included in the REFER request. Moreover, you can never be sure whether
> the subscription usage is even applicable to the recipient or whether
> the recipient even supports it.
>
> aayush
>
> On 3/24/09, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dale Worley wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 08:18 -0700, Brett Tate wrote:
> >>> Everyone: Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE usage, SUBSCRIPTION
> >>> usage, or neither?
> >>>
> >>> I'm asking mainly because of REFER 481 impacts; however the answer
> >>> also has potential implications concerning draft-ietf-sip-info-
> events.
> >>> RFC 5057 appears to imply that it is part of the subscription
> usage;
> >>> however I'm not positive if my interpretation and/or RFC 5057 is
> >>> correct.
> >>>
> >>> If REFER isn't considered part of the INVITE usage, how should
> REFER
> >>> 481 be interpreted? More specifically, should receiver of REFER
> 481
> >>> send BYE?
> >>
> >> I would argue that the REFER is part of the INVITE usage, because
> REFER
> >> in that context is intimately related to the INVITE usage -- it is
> >> intended to transfer the INVITE usage/dialog transferred to a
> different
> >> destination.
> >
> > Well, I guess there is that implied association. (Part of the "do
> what
> > *I* had in mind" approach that REFER has.) Since this was never
> spelled
> > out, it could also be simply "while this isn't part of an INVITE
> usage,
> > if there happens to be an INVITE usage, please refer that one."
> >
> > I guess the question is: would it be valid to send a REFER within an
> > existing dialog that had no INVITE usage? If it were valid,
> presumably
> > it would have the same meaning as sending one outside a dialog,
> except
> > that the resulting subscription would share the dialog. I expect that
> is
> > a usage it would be difficult to find in the wild.
> >
> > Ah, but now I want to reconsider. Remember that REFER can take a
> method
> > name. So, rather than referring an INVITE, I could be referring
> MESSAGE,
> > OPTIONS, BYE, or maybe (????) SUBSCRIBE. In some of those cases, the
> > association to the INVITE usage is probably meaningless. (Of course
> its
> > meaningful for BYE.)
> >
> >> And it seems quite safe that if the REFER receives a 481 response,
> the
> >> INVITE usage must not be functional any more, since the far end of
> that
> >> usage has denied that it can act on the REFER.
> >
> > IIRC, 5057 decided that each dialog usage must get its own 481 before
> it
> > goes away. I don't think there are any cases where a single 481
> response
> > can make multiple usages go away.
> >
> > So the important question is whether the REFER is part of the INVITE
> > usage and so its 481 takes down the INVITE usage or not. That gets
> > especially interesting if the dialog already had both an INVITE
> usage
> > and a SUBSCRIBE usage. Does it make sense that the refer take down
> the
> > INVITE usage and leave up the SUBSCRIBE usage?
> >
> >> Now it's possible that the REFER, if it is successful, is the first
> >> transaction of the subscription usage. But I don't think that has
> any
> >> paradoxical consequences, as by hypothesis, the REFER succeeded.
> >
> > Yeah, its already so weird, why not a little more weird?
> >
> > Also, I think it has recently been clarified that the 200 of a
> SUBSCRIBE
> > should not be considered to create a dialog - that its the NOTIFY
> that
> > creates the dialog. If so, then I suppose the same should be true of
> REFER.
> >
> > Bottom line: I can live with it either way, but think it should be
> > documented one way or the other.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> > Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> > Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip