Hi,
In case of 3261 compliant statck dialog match is mandatory to have call-Id
match or will this be OK if the transaction matches.
the messages which I used are as follows..
INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5063 SIP/2.0
From: BigGuy <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5061>;tag=9fxced76sl
To: LittleGuy <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5063>
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.18.2.61:5061;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
Max-Forwards: 66
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5061;transport=udp>
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 180 RINGING
From: BigGuy <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5061>;tag=9fxced76sl
To: LittleGuy <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5063>
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.18.2.61:5060;branch=z9hG4bK390cf6ad2
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.18.2.61:5061;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
Record-Route: <sip:10.18.2.61:5060;ttl=0;X-HwCsfCookie=1>
Max-Forwards: 65
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5061;transport=udp>
Content-Length: 0
the two messages differ in Call-Id.
In this case shall I consider Dlg match as a full match since branch Id
match happens or should be considered as No-Match...
{{
The two options left out are as follows
If we have call-Id match Then that lead repeated check on call-Id in case of
2543 compliant messages. because call-Id match is part transaction match
itself.
Or
else we need to do this conditionally for 3261 compliant mesages (for this
branch Id check for magic cookie need to be done @ dialog level)
}}
Any responses will be appreciated...
Regards,
-------------------------------------------
Nataraju A.B.
Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,
Tel : +91-98455-95744
-------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
