Summary:	ASTERISK-12095: Asterisk should reply "200 OK" to an in-dialog INFO with empty body
Reporter:	Iñaki Baz Castillo (ibc)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2008-05-28 09:00:36	Date Closed:	2008-07-01 10:58:16
Priority:	Major	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Channels/chan_sip/Interoperability
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:
Description:	I've had problems using a carrier that uses Nortel CS2K softswitch because the Nortel sends an in-dialog INFO with empty body to monitorize long duration calls. AFAIK this method has been commonly used until now that we have session timers (RFC 3311). If Asterisk supports RFC 2976 (SIP INFO), it must return 200 instead of 4XX when INFO contains no body. RFC 2976 section 2.2: ----------- "A 200 OK response MUST be sent by a UAS for an INFO request with no message body if the INFO request was successfully received for an existing call." "A 481 Call Leg/Transaction Does Not Exist message MUST be sent by a UAS if the INFO request does not match any existing call leg." ------------ Asterisk replies with a 4XX (sorry, not sure of exact code now) so Nortel hangs the call. ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** I assume that this report is 95% related to an existing report ASTERISK-10781 (Asterisk doesn't reply well to in-dialog OPTIONS in pedantic mode).
Comments:	By: Joshua C. Colp (jcolp) 2008-05-28 09:46:57 There is already code present to do as you say, it was added in revision 88328 as a result of issue 5747 so the underlying issue is probably the one you mentioned. By: Iñaki Baz Castillo (ibc) 2008-05-28 10:27:49 Thanks. Anyway we still have the same problem of ASTERISK-10781: ¿What about if Asterisk calls to Nortel and later Nortel sends the **in-dialog** INFO to Asterisk? I suppose that Asterisk will reject with 404 if the provider couldn't call (initial-request) to asme extension. Or is it the in-dialog INFO behaviour in Asterisk different of the in-dialog OPTIONS? Cheers and cheese ! By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2008-07-01 09:59:35 I'm confused. Is this still an issue? By: Iñaki Baz Castillo (ibc) 2008-07-01 10:41:20 AFAIK it's fixed some time ago. In fact I just had this problem in an Asterisk 1.4.4 but not in an Asterisk 1.4.20. By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2008-07-01 10:58:11 Ok, closing the issue. Feel free to reopen if it shows up again. Thanks for a quick reply!