On 4/10/12 11:25 AM, Nataraju A.B wrote:
>> 2) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = INVITE
>>
>> What should reply bob for the second INVITE?
>>
> [ABN] this is an incorrect behavior from UAC. because this (2nd INVITE)
> lead to overlapped offer-answer request. In this case it is expected that
> UAS reply with 491 Request pending.
Its incorrect, but not for that reason. According to 3261 section 14.1:
Note that a UAC MUST NOT initiate a new INVITE transaction within a
dialog while another INVITE transaction is in progress in either
direction.
The proper response to use in this case is open to discussion. 491
doesn't seem like the right response - it is for glare (requests in
opposite directions). In the absence of a better choice I think probably
400 applies. (But I wouldn't get too upset with an implementation that
chose some other 4xx, including 491.)
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
