Back in November of 2002, there was a discussion of whether or not the 200-OK for a CANCEL should have a to-tag. I reviewed the thread and it appears to me the consensus was that they should have to-tags in accordance with RFC 3261. However, none of the CANCEL examples in RFC 3665 have to-tags in the 200-OK response to the CANCEL.
Was it decided that CANCEL responses do not need to-tags? If so, is there a bug against RFC 3261 for this? I could not find one. I realize that 3665 is not normative, but the examples are being cited as evidence that to-tags are not required in the CANCEL response. cheers, (-:bob Robert F. Penfield Chief Software Architect Acme Packet, Inc. 130 New Boston Street Woburn, MA 01801 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
