It must accept the new call as from tag is different. Their is no connection between both the call. 481 is for in dialog message.
Thanks and Regards Dheeraj Kumar Sent from iPhone > On 24-Aug-2016, at 1:11 PM, isshed <isshed....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:39 AM, My Gmail <dheerajmaho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This behavior is in correct. The device should match the dialog. If the >> invite doesn't contain to tag then it is a new invite. If it's reinvite then >> device must compare call Id, from tag and to tag if it support 3261. >> >> >> Thanks and Regards >> Dheeraj Kumar >> >> Sent from iPhone >> >>> On 24-Aug-2016, at 11:19 AM, isshed <isshed....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> I am facing a strange problem. Below is the call flow. >>> >>> UA1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------UA2 >>> 1) <============= call is connected(callid1, ftag1, ttag1) >>> ================> >>> 2) >>> <-----------------------------------------------------------------BYE------------------------------------------- >>> 3) >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------200-BYE-------------------------------------> >>> >>> 4) <-------------------------------------INVITE with callid1 and new >>> from tag tag2----------------- >>> >>> >>> There is a connected call with dialog id as (callid1, from tag ftag1, >>> to tag ttag1). When BYE is received at UA1 it responds with 200 ok and >>> starts running Timer J timer(32 seconds). After 5 seconds a new INVITE >>> is received by UA1 having same callid as previous call(callid1) and >>> new from tag. >>> >>> UA1 is responding with 481 response? is it correct behaviour.? please >>> suggest if anything is there in RFC. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sip-implementors mailing list >>> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu >>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > Thanks Deeraj, > > I don't know if you understood the problem or not. the new Invite is > having same call id but different From tag. when already there is call > with non-server transaction is in completed state. and time J is > running. is it ok to send 481 or accept the call as new call. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
