See rfc3261 8.2.6.2 concerning From, To, Call-ID, Via, and CSeq. A UAS device not following rfc3261 8.2.6.2 is not compliant and likely not very interoperable. Some aspects of section 8.2.6.2 might be deprecated in the future; however it still has not been. Since the device is non compliant, you can basically act however you wish.
RFC 4916 provides a mechanism (using option tag "from-change") to partially deprecate the uri matching rules within a dialog. However it still doesn't allow them to change within responses. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Raj Jain > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 6:56 AM > To: Sree > Cc: Sip-Implementors > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Question on matching response > to atransaction > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:50 AM, Sree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In such a scenario, what is the action to be taken on Response that > > contain the Via branch and Cseq method identical to the > Request that > > created the transaction, but differs in either/all of the > following headers: > > > From: [differs in from-URI only] > > A proper RFC 3261 compliant implementation (that matches > dialogs based on from-tag, to-tag, and Call-ID fields only) > should treat this as a valid response. > > > From: [differs in from-tag] > > This response will fail dialog matching and will thus be ignored. > > > To: [differs in to-URI only] > > This is a valid response. > > > To: [differs in to-tag] > > This means that the request was forked and the response has > been sent by a different UAS. > > > Call-ID: > > This response will fail dialog matching and will thus be ignored. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
