[SIPForum-discussion] Response for REFER

[Zhu Liang]

Graziani, Germano (Germano)** CTR ** wrote:

> Hi Liang,
>  
> You're right: the RFC is not so clear about REFER handling and for 
> this reason SIP phones handled REFER message in different ways.
>  
> In generale seems that 200OK message is acceptable, but it is 
> better discuss this point with the customer and/or supplier.
>  
> Best Regards. Germano.
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* discussion-bounces at sipforum.org
>     [mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org]*On Behalf Of *Zhu Liang
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, August 09, 2005 14:47
>     *To:* discussion at sipforum.org
>     *Subject:* [SIPForum-discussion] Response for REFER
>
>     Hi all,
>     I have some confusion about SIP REFER, if a UA receives an 200 OK
>     instead of 202 Accepted for his REFER message, is it correct? I
>     read a little RFC3515
>     in 2.4.2 it says :
>
>/   If no final response has been generated according to the rules above,
>   the UA MUST return a 202 Accepted response before the REFER
>   transaction expires./
>
>    
>
>It seems that it MUST send the 202 Accepted.
>    
>
>
>     But the following paragragh says:
>
>/   If a REFER request is accepted (that is, a 2xx class response is
>   returned), the recipient MUST create a subscription and send
>   notifications of the status of the refer as described in Section
>   2.4.4./
>
>     Here the 2xx class seems to mean that it is also acceptable for a
>     200 OK message.
>
>     Would anyone tell me 200 OK message for REFER is acceptable and if
>     not how would the UA do for it?
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>discussion mailing list
>discussion at sipforum.org
>http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>  
>
Hi Germano,
Thank you very much for your reply. It is very clear now.
Regards,
Zhu Liang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20050809/eb1693e8/attachment-0001.html>