On 4/10/12 11:44 AM, Brett Tate 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.
>>
>> 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.
Thanks Brett! You can always be relied upon to dredge up the references
that I miss.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
