Hi,
I was not able to find a reply to the below posting
by Ravi. I too have a similar issue with the MESSAGE
request.
Consider the scenario of two users using the same UA.
If user A has sent a MESSAGE request or any out-of-
dialog request to a URI say sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the user A is yet to get a final response for the
request.
Now user B is trying to send a MESSAGE request
to the same URI. Should the UA allow the second
MESSAGE request to pass through or not?
Can somebody clarify this?
Regards,
Dinesh
Ravi Koyyana wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for the clarification on the following
> two requirements from the I-D Extension for Instant
> Messaging(draft-ietf-sip-message-06):
>
> A UAC MUST NOT initiate a new out-of-dialog
> MESSAGE transaction to a given URI if there is a
> previous out-of-dialog transaction pending for the
> same URI.
>
> Similarly, A UAC SHOULD NOT initiate overlapping
> MESSAGE transactions inside a dialog, and MUST NOT do
> so unless the route set for that dialog uses a
> congestion-controlled transport at every hop.
>
> Queries:
>
> 1. Why these requirements are MUST NOT instead of
> SHOULD NOT as it is to reduce the
> congestion-control
> and not elimination of congestion altogether?
> 2. Does these restctions apply to the MESSAGE trans-
> actions taking place in different dialogs but are
> established between the same UAC and UAS? (The
> intent again is to reduce the congestion by the
> initiator).
>
> Thanks in anticipation of replies.
>
> Ravi.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
> visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
