Search for 491 in RFC 3261. You'll be particularly interested in its occurrance in section 14.2.
Be careful to note that you don't abandon a dialog on non-2xx responses in general. There are specific responses that let you know the dialog is no longer valid (481), but in general non-2xx's leave the dialog intact with the session unchanged. See the last paragraph on page 87. RjS On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 04:25, Udi Apsel wrote: > Hi, > I was wondering about a specific SIP scenario of the following type: > Two SIP endpoints send invite messages to each other at the same time > during > the same SIP session (same Call-Leg). > > (a) (b) > Invite Invite > --------> <---------- > > While this scenario is unlikely to happen, it becomes more probable if > you consider that > One of the (re)invites could be a result of session-expiration refresh. > > My question is what is the "right" way to handle this sort of situation? > Remember that the two invites could completely differ in coders & SDP. > Moreover, a 4xx response from one side could result with disconnection > of the session, > certainly an unwanted feature. > > In general I've never seen SIP call flaws involving two interactions at > a time. > I'd appreciate any suggestions or enlightening comets on the issue. > > Best regards, > Udi Apsel. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
