I believe that a CSeq of 2 is perfectly valid for the second INVITE (resubmitted with credentials). The RFC 3261 is clear that it should have the same Call-ID and from-tag. The CSeq number space is per dialog. This second INVITE is not part of any dialog, therefore its CSeq should not be compared with any previous dialog.
If a UA does keep CSeq state for a Call-ID it should be independent of the dialog CSeq state, and not updated by in-dialog requests. cheers, (-:bob -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:02 AM To: Christer Holmberg Cc: [email protected]; Paul Kyzivat Subject: Re: [Sip] Interesting problem with PRACK and resent INVITEs Christer, >> . >> >> >> Regarding from tags there is no explicit text, but 22.2 says: >> >> When a UAC resubmits a request with its credentials after receiving a >> 401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) response, >> it MUST increment the CSeq header field value as it would normally >> when sending an updated request. >> > > So, I guess that means that the second INVITE in Dale's example should > have Cseq => 3. I interpreted this as "MUST increment (relative to the INVITE being challenged)". I guess for initial INVITEs the minimal requirement is that the CSeq be different, else merged request detection (8.2.2.2) could kick in and prevent the call from succeeding. So both 2 or 3 are valid, the text is ambiguous Regards, Jeroen _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
