On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 16:21 +0100, Benny Prijono wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Pedro Sanchez <psanchez at nortel.com> wrote: > > PJSIP sends a 200 message in response to the REFER while the other two > > SIP stacks that I can test send 202 messages instead. The proxy is happy > > with the other stacks but not with PJSIP. > > > > Note below the reference to the expected 202 message in RFC 3515. Also, > > as an example, see > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mahy-sip-remote-cc-04.txt (diagram in > > section 3). Note how a 202 answer is always assumed in this context as > > well. > > True, but I thought 200 is more appropriate when we have a definite > knowledge that a NOTIFY will be sent immediately (see RFC 3265). And > as you quoted, any 2xx code can be used to accept the request. > > But that's a good point though, I don't mind changing it if that works > with more servers. > > > If you tell me where to go in the source code to modify this behaviour I > > could test the scenario with PJSIP sending a 202 response. I'm using the > > released version 0.8. > > Application can modify the status code in on_call_transfer_request() > callback, and if this callback is not implemented, a 200 response to > REFER will be generated instead. See on_call_transfered() function in > pjsua_call.c. > > Cheers > Benny > Hello Benny, I know this is a rather old thread but I wanted to provide further feedback on this issue. I finally had time to get back to my program and to run some tests with our gateways. The final word is that a 202 message makes the difference. Our gateways are happy with it and I don't experience timeouts anymore. So, if i may suggest, PJSIP should accept REFER messages with a 202 message by default. This seems to follow the letter of the RFCs, which I acknowledge are not very explicit on this regard, and certainly it plays well with my gateways. Thank you, -- Pedro
