On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Nataraju A.B <[email protected]>wrote:
> comments inline... > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 2012/4/10 Shanbhag, Somesh (NSN - IN/Bangalore) <[email protected] >> >: >> >> 1) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = BYE >> > (1) Yes, Definitely BYE has higher precedence and should be honored. >> >> Makes sense. >> >> >> >> 2) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = INVITE >> > (2) 491 Request Pending should be sent. >> >> Why? RFC 3261 section 14.2 states that 491 is sent by a UAS that has >> received an in-dialog request while a previous in-dialog request sent >> *by him* has got no final response yet. It's not the same scenario. >> > > [ABN] Generally 491 is meant for INVITE cross-over scenario, where INVITE > requests are initiated by UAs in either directions. But for the scenario > you have mentioned earlier, 491 is most suitable reply for the 2nd INVITE > request. > [ABN] Hence 491 response code can be overloaded to use it for this scenario as well. > > >> >> >> 3) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = OPTIONS >> > (3) OPTIONS, it depends. UAS can reply with its capabilities right away. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Iñaki Baz Castillo >> <[email protected]> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sip-implementors mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >> > > > > -- > Thanks, > Nataraju A.B. > > -- Thanks, Nataraju A.B. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
