> >> 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. > > The same as I've replied to the other mail: > > 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.
RFC 3261 14.2 UAS Behavior Section 13.3.1 describes the procedure for distinguishing incoming re-INVITEs from incoming initial INVITEs and handling a re-INVITE for an existing dialog. A UAS that receives a second INVITE before it sends the final response to a first INVITE with a lower CSeq sequence number on the same dialog MUST return a 500 (Server Internal Error) response to the second INVITE and MUST include a Retry-After header field with a randomly chosen value of between 0 and 10 seconds. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
