Hello mighty All,
RFC 3891 reads (section 3):
========================================
If the Replaces header field matches an early dialog that was not
initiated by this UA, it returns a 481 (Call/Transaction Does Not
Exist) response to the new INVITE, and leaves the matched dialog
unchanged.
========================================
Does this mean that the following scenario is impossible?
========================================
Transferor Transferee Transfer Target
-----INVITE/200/ACK--------->
-----------------------------------INVITE/100/180-------------->
----REFER+Replaces/202------>
------------INVITE+Replaces-------->
<-----------------------------------------------------487/ACK---
<-----------200/ACK-----------------
========================================
The dialog being replaced is in "early" state, but it was not originated
by the Transfer Target (as is not only stated, but also illustrated in
RFC 3891 sect. 7.1).
Cisco IPPhones seem to support this scenario. What is the compliant
behavior?
Thanks in advance,
Kirill
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
