Summary:	ASTERISK-01225: [patch] Impliments the inbound part of sip-notify(a proprietary cisco format)
Reporter:	raiden (raiden)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2004-03-16 21:06:30.000-0600	Date Closed:	2011-06-07 14:05:15
Priority:	Major	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Core/General
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:	( 0) chan_sip_notify.txt
Description:	Here is a diff that implements the inbound part of sip-notify, a `proprietary' cisco format. CVS is diffed against cvs -stable.(Todd wanted me to send this diff) ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** For questions/flames/etc/ send the hoarde to Todd T. Fries <todd@fries.net>
Comments:	By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2004-03-19 04:35:21.000-0600 Do you have any documentation or examples of devices that uses this? Any standard documents or Cisco docs? Is there any other problems with signalling that we accept NOTIFY in methods? Why do you hard code an IP address in the patch? Is that necessary? By: djs (djs) 2004-03-27 12:43:06.000-0600 i made a similar modification for my own use some time ago. #ifdef VONAGE        } else if (!strcasecmp(cmd, "NOTIFY")) {                if (sipdebug) ast_verbose("Sending responce to NOTIFY.\n");                receive_info(p, req);                transmit_response(p, "200 OK", req);                p->needdestroy = 1; #endif i am not certain what the situation is with the latest cvs code but back when i did this a year ago, p->needdestroy = 1; was necessary. you might need this in your patch as well. edited on: 03-27-04 11:33 By: James Golovich (jamesgolovich) 2004-03-28 02:47:49.000-0600 I don't really know anything about this but I looked over this and noticed that NOTIFY_RESP was hardcoded in a define in here.  Probably something that should be dynamically generated or at least configurable from the config file By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2004-04-24 03:36:23 Todd, I fixed the file, finally. Dislaimer? By: Brian West (bkw918) 2004-04-30 00:39:47 Can we fix this properly? By: twisted (twisted) 2004-05-02 23:48:31 Since this is a propriatery format, and the origional author hasn't responded since they posted this almost 2 months ago, I'm going to close it.   Please do not take this personally... Just don't see it being implimented after taking a quick consensus. By: twisted (twisted) 2004-05-02 23:49:11 Since this is a propriatery format, and the origional author hasn't responded since they posted this almost 2 months ago, I'm going to close it.   Please do not take this personally... Just don't see it being implimented after taking a quick consensus.