no to tag is not there
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, My Gmail <dheerajmaho...@gmail.com> wrote: > Can you please confirm if to tag is available in the invite or not? If yes > then 481 is expected else it must be accepted. > > 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
