Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Passing a Reason header for a CANCEL method through a sems #164

Open
denyspozniak opened this issue Nov 16, 2020 · 7 comments
Open

Passing a Reason header for a CANCEL method through a sems #164

denyspozniak opened this issue Nov 16, 2020 · 7 comments

Comments

@denyspozniak
Copy link
Contributor

Hello!

We have faced a problem of passing a Reason header for a CANCEL method through a sems.
Is there any way to fix this?

image

@mkezys
Copy link

mkezys commented Nov 17, 2020

Hi,

CANCEL is so-called hop-by-hop message. E.g. your first CANCEL is consumed by SEMS and the second one is generated by SEMS. SEMS is not re-sending your CANCEL. More details: https://thanhloi2603.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/introduction-to-sip-bye-cancel-and-hop-by-hop-messages/

@denyspozniak
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks!
Yes, I understand that, but the task is to save this field when "forwarding" a message. But there are a number of cases where it is necessary.
For example, depending on the Reason for the canceled incoming call, a callee device may report it as a missed call (if the Reason header indicates a caller cancelling) or not (if the Reason header indicates that the call has established somewhere else, due to parallel forking).

@mkezys
Copy link

mkezys commented Nov 17, 2020

Yes, that would be great to pass this. SEMS identifies it as 'hdrs'

[handle_sip_request, SipCtrlInterface.cpp:782] DEBUG: hdrs = <Reason: SIP;cause=200;text="Call completed elsewhere"..>

A quick look at the code shows like it should be copied to the generated CANCEL:

https://github.com/sems-server/sems/blob/master/core/sip/trans_layer.cpp#L1509

@ThomasSevestre
Copy link
Contributor

Do you use SBC module ?

@denyspozniak
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ThomasSevestre yes
application = sbc

@ThomasSevestre
Copy link
Contributor

I have done most of the work but it is not mergeable as is. If you can wait I'll make a PR but I'm not sure when I'll be able to.

@denyspozniak
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks!
Of course, I'll wait.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants