Bugs item #1818469, was opened at 2007-10-23 12:26 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by ibc_sf You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743020&aid=1818469&group_id=139143
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: core Group: ver 1.2.x Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Iñaki Baz (ibc_sf) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 200 for CANCEL contains wrong To_tag Initial Comment: According to RFC 3261 "9.2 Server Behavior": "...the UAS answers the CANCEL request itself with a 200 (OK) response. This response is constructed following the procedures described in Section 8.2.6 noting that the *To tag* of the response to the CANCEL and the *To tag* in the response to the original request SHOULD be the *same*. The response to CANCEL is passed to the server transaction for transmission." But OpenSer doesn't not it. OpenSer generates a new To tag for the 200 to the CANCEL different from the To tag received in the 180 Ringing. I attach a trace in which Asterisk calls to a OpenSer user, this user rings but Asterisk sends a CANCEL. The 200 To_tag to this CANCEL is different of the To_tag in the 180: # Phone -> OpenSer SIP/2.0 180 Ringing Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 85.12.12.110;branch=z9hG4bK2bca.08cf2485.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 85.12.12.111:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK57feb524 To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=bptnj ... # OpenSer -> Asterisk SIP/2.0 180 Ringing Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 85.12.12.111:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK57feb524 To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=bptnj # Asterisk -> OpenSer CANCEL sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 85.12.12.111:5060;branch=z9hG4bK57feb524;rport From: "asterisk" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=as2bf71219 To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> # Openser -> Asterisk SIP/2.0 200 canceling Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 85.12.12.111:5060;branch=z9hG4bK57feb524;rport=5060 From: "asterisk" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=as2bf71219 To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=fa997f81440371de71ab448ebdb9af56-31d7 Call-ID: 7494f28219c Because it Asterisk resends CANCEL again and again. I've seen most devices "allow" it, but IMHO it's not RFC compliant, is it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Iñaki Baz (ibc_sf) Date: 2007-10-23 14:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1844020 Originator: YES As Klaus Darilion sais in mail list: "what says the RFC about a proxy which does parallel forking? Then there may be multiple 180 ringing with multiple to tags. Which one should be used?" So then maybe RFC is buggy in this CANCELspecification not compliant with proxies doing parallel forking? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743020&aid=1818469&group_id=139143 _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
