*I think* the device should determine whenever or not the INVITE is an initial INVITE or a reINVITE by checking for presence of a to-tag. (I think RFC3261 mentions this scenario somewhere - section 12.2.2).
A spurious reINVITE, i.e. one without a matching dialog should be rejected with a 481 (no matching call/transaction) response. Matthew Gardiner -----Original Message----- From: Emily Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 June 2006 15:53 To: Matthew Gardiner Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] SIP blind transfer question Hi Matthew, You are correct. The re-Invite is extraneous and should not be sent by the proxy so it does not show in the call flow you reference. However, in the condition that an extraneous re-INVITE is sent, my question is how the SIP UA should react? We are seeing different behaviors in our lab where most devices do not re-ring the Phone X (Transferor) and one device does rering X, and my question is whether there is any defined behavior in this instance. Thank you! Emily > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Gardiner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:39 AM > To: Smith, Emily [GWRTP:JD03:EXCH] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] SIP blind transfer question > > > Hi Emily, > > Which flow are you looking at regarding the scenario you describe? > > We base our blind transfer (approximately) on > > section 5.1 of > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-cc-tran sfer-06.txt I cannot see the re-invite you describe in this flow. Matthew Gardiner -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Emily Smith Sent: 26 June 2006 13:42 To: [email protected] Subject: [Sip-implementors] SIP blind transfer question Hello, I am new to the list and relatively new to SIP as well. I have a question I hope someone can answer here. I have searched the SIP RFCs and drafts to no avail. If a SIP party X performs a blind transfer of party X to party Y, and the SIP proxy sends a NOTIFY (100 Trying) to the Sip party X, followed by a re-INVITE with the same Call-ID prior to sending a NOTIFY (200 Ok), what should the SIP device X's response be to the extraneous re-INVITE? Since party X is on-hook at the time since this is a blind rather than an attended transfer, he could re-ring X's line (though there is no party calling, so this is confusing to the user), or he could ignore the re-INVITE since he is waiting for a NOTIFY 200 Ok state. Is there any guidance in the SIP RFCs/drafts for SIP User Agent behavior in this situation, or is it up to the individual UA to implement as desired? Many thanks in advance, Emily Smith DMS-10 Software Development Nortel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office 919.992.7467 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
