On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 15:48 +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/7/29 Scott Lawrence <scott.lawre...@nortel.com>:
> > A 4xx response does not create a dialog, so the retry of the INVITE with
> > credentials is a new request.
> >
> > It should however, use the same call-id and from tag that the first
> > INVITE used (with a higher Cseq).
>
> That's not mandatory, it could use new call-id and from tag and it
> should work in any environment.
RFC 3261 section 8.1.1.4 Call-ID:
... Note that when requests are retried after certain
failure responses that solicit an amendment to a request (for
example, a challenge for authentication), these retried requests are
not considered new requests, and therefore do not need new Call-ID
header fields; see Section 8.1.3.5.
and then section 8.1.3.5 Processing 4xx Responses:
Certain 4xx response codes require specific UA processing,
independent of the method.
If a 401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)
response is received, the UAC SHOULD follow the authorization
procedures of Section 22.2 and Section 22.3 to retry the request with
credentials.
[...]
In all of the above cases, the request is retried by creating a new
request with the appropriate modifications. This new request
constitutes a new transaction and SHOULD have the same value of the
Call-ID, To, and From of the previous request, but the CSeq should
contain a new sequence number that is one higher than the previous.
Note that RFC 2119 defines SHOULD:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
