RE: [Sip-implementors] To-Tag value

Mon, 01 Sep 2003 14:38:41 +0000

Title: Message
The transaction will match as per 17.1.3, since the branch param and cseq method in both final responses will be the same as in the UAC INVITE request. Till timer D fires, subsequent final responses will be absorbed by the UAC and will send out an ACK per final response since this is for UNRELIABLE transport.
 
In such a scenario, should the earlier To-Tag be replaced by the newer one?
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Attila Sipos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:53 PM
To: Attila Sipos; P Rajmohan Banavi-A17190; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] To-Tag value

 
 
Sorry, I was wrong,
 
Natraj's response is right.
 
>The 500 response will be dropped in the first place.
>since there is not matching txn by that time...
>No entity must send response with diff tags for the same call (even among
>provisional and final responses also...)
 
My scenario was nonsense, since if there was a 300 response,
there wouldn't be a call up anyway (since it's just a redirection
response).
 
But two final responses are still illegal so, as Natraj
said, the second one (the 500) will get dropped.
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Attila Sipos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 September 2003 14:18
To: 'P Rajmohan Banavi-A17190'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] To-Tag value

 
 
I think this is illegal.
 
The 300 is a FINAL response already (anything >= 200 is a FINAL response)
so you cannot send another final response afterwards.
 
I think the correct thing to do would be:
 
 UAC                                   UAS
------                                ------
-------------------------------> INVITE
<------------------------------- 300 Multiple choices
--------------------------------> ACK
<------------------------------- BYE
--------------------------------> OK (to BYE)
 
In the BYE request, you can specify a disconnection reason, if you like,
using the "The Reason Header Field for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)"
in RFC3326:
 Regards,

Attila
 
Attila Sipos   
Software Engineer
VegaStream : A World of difference for your Integrated Communications
-----Original Message-----
From: P Rajmohan Banavi-A17190 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 September 2003 14:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Sip-implementors] To-Tag value

Hi,
 
This is related to INVITE transaction on unreliable transport.
 
 UAC                                   UAS
------                                ------
-------------------------------> INVITE
<------------------------------- 300 Multiple choices
--------------------------------> ACK
<------------------------------- 500 Server internal error (before the Timer D fires)
--------------------------------> ACK
 
Suppose the "To-tag" in the second final response (500) sent by UAS is different than the one in the initial response (300),
 
1. how should the UAC behave?
 
2. And what should be the value of the "To-Tag" in the ACK sent by UAC for 500 response?
 
regards,
Rajmohan
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to