Hi Tarun, Thanks for your quick response.
Thanks, Kiran. On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Tarun2 Gupta <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Kiran > > Section 8.1.3.4 of RFC 3261 also states the following: > > "In all other respects, requests sent upon receipt of a redirect > response SHOULD re-use the header fields and bodies of the original > request." > > For Via branch, RFC 3261 mandates a new branch parameter, for Call-ID, To > and From, RFC 3261 recommends reuse. IMO, you can extrapolate this > recommendation for CSeq too. You may / may not use the same CSeq in the > redirected Invite. > > Hope it helps. > > Regards, > Tarun Gupta > Aricent > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of kiran kumar > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:01 AM > To: sip-implementors > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Reg Cseq value for processing 3xx responses. > > Hi all, > > I have a doubt regarding Cseq value while processing 3xx responses. > According to RFC 3261 8.1.3.4 the new invite request for the redirected > address can use the same Cseq value. > According to RFC 3665 3.6 call flows, the CSeq value is incremented for the > new invite request while processing the 3xx response. > Is it mandatory to increment the CSeq value in this scenario ? > > Thanks, > Kiran. > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > > =============================================================================== > Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html > for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. > > =============================================================================== > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
