In addition, if it isn't a retransmitted initial request, then it is probably a forked INVITE and SHOULD be rejected. See RFC3261 Section 8.2.2.2 for more details.
Regards, Michael Procter > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Nataraju A > B > Sent: 29 September 2005 15:08 > To: 'Mahipati Deshpande'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] re-INVITE without Remote tag > > > If the INVITE does not contain the to-tag, it will not be > considered as > a re-INVITE, might be retransmitted request, in this case it would be > replied with the same 200-OK which was sent earlier... > > It does not create a new dialog... > > Thanks & Regards, > Nataraju A.B. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Mahipati > Deshpande > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Sip-implementors] re-INVITE without Remote tag > > Hi All, > > After establising a dialog, if UA receives re-INVITE > wihtout tag in TO header( off course UA sending > re-INVITE must me malfunctioning entity) what UA > should do? > Since this re-INVITE without To tag does not match > with existing dialog ID, should UA treat it outside > dialog and create new dialog once re-INVITE trasaction > completes successfuly? > > Thanks, > Mahipati Deshpande > > Mahipati Deshpande > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to > http://yahoo.shaadi.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
