Thanks for the response. Reply inline. > I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but 3262 clearly > states that you MUST send 2xx: > > "If the PRACK does match an unacknowledged reliable provisional > response, it MUST be responded to with a 2xx response." > > But I guess that's part of the debate you speak of.
Yep; that is part of the debate. > If one follows the guidance in RFC 5057, then a 481 would > destroy the INVITE usage for the dialog and likely the dialog > since that's probably its only usage. Since RFC 3262 allows the PRACK 481 to be sent for a known dialog (similar to CANCEL), it sound like there is a problem with RFC 5057 section 5.1 note 8. > It seems to me that RFC 3262 ought to have allowed a 488 > response if the headers/content of the PRACK were not acceptable. It does; however it depends upon who you ask. :) _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
