[SIPForum-discussion] Is (200)Ok without Ringing (180, 183) a right approach?

[Corey Thornburg]

It is acceptable, yes.  However, in general I have usually seen a 180 even if the call is auto answered.


Rosenberg, et. al.          Standards Track                    [Page 83]

RFC 3261            SIP: Session Initiation Protocol           June 2002


   contains a session id and version number in the origin (o) field.  If
   the user is already a member of the session, and the session
   parameters contained in the session description have not changed, the
   UAS MAY silently accept the INVITE (that is, send a 2xx response
   without prompting the user).

   If the INVITE does not contain a session description, the UAS is
   being asked to participate in a session, and the UAC has asked that
   the UAS provide the offer of the session.  It MUST provide the offer
   in its first non-failure reliable message back to the UAC.  In this
   specification, that is a 2xx response to the INVITE.

   The UAS can indicate progress, accept, redirect, or reject the
   invitation.  In all of these cases, it formulates a response using
   the procedures described in Section 8.2.6.


Corey Thornburg
VoIP Architect

From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Sachin Parnami
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:38 PM
To: discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] Is (200)Ok without Ringing (180, 183) a right approach?

Hi *,

Is it a right approach to send Ok (200) without Ringing(180) or Session in Progress (183)? as these are provisional responses.

UE1                                             UE2
 |              INVITE                            |
 |-------------------------------------------------->|
 |              TRYING (100)                  |
 |<------------------------------------------------- |
 |                     OK (200)                  |
 |<--------------------------------------------------|

Does it abides standards of RFC 3261?

--
Regards,
Sachin Parnami
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100916/f22197b3/attachment-0002.html>