> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:John.Hearty@;Level3.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 13:38 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Questions about Dialogs > > > > > 1a) It makes the presence of a To-tag no > > > longer sufficient enough to distinguish > > > an invite from re-invite. > > > > In my experience, that's never really been all that useful. > > You always have session state for ongoing sessions; you can > > use its absence or presence to determine whether an INVITE > > is a re-INVITE. > > This statement sounds like it might cause problems for the > case of the > crashed and restarted UA using the presence of a To tag and > any Record-Route > header included to reconstitute state from a re-Invite...
How? If it's crashed, it will have no dialog in addition to having no session state. It's trivially distinguishable. Can you outline a failure scenario? /a _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
