Pl. see inline ...
________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Muthu Arul
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:27 AM
To: Brett Tate
Cc: SIP
Subject: Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4028 (1681)
If the From tag doesn't change, can the UAS retrain the same To
tag as well?
[Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)] When can UAS retain to-tag, when it
is rejecting *resubmitted* request?
If the new INVITE reaches the UAS before the ACK for the
previous INVITE, what should the UAS do?
[Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)] Since the resubmitted request will not
have a to-tag, even if Call-Id and from-tag is same, it wont match any
ongoing transaction and so should be treated as a new request.
Should it reject the new INVITE and expect the UAC to retry
again?
I thought it would have been much simpler had the From/To tag
changed b/w the INVITE messages..
[Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)] It would have been better, but it is
not illegal for Call-id + from-tag to not change. Besides, it is an
example and should be treated as such..
thanks,
Muthu
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Brett Tate
<[email protected]> wrote:
Based upon the following snippet, my understanding is
that RFC 4028 is correctly following the SHOULD.
RFC 3261 section 8.1.3.5 snippet:
"In all of the above cases, the request is retried by
creating a new request with the appropriate modifications. This new
request constitutes a new transaction and SHOULD have the same value of
the Call-ID, To, and From of the previous request, but the CSeq should
contain a new sequence number that is one higher than the previous. With
other 4xx responses, including those yet to be defined, a retry may or
may not be possible depending on the method and the use case."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dale
> Worley
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:14 PM
> To: SIP
> Subject: Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4028
(1681)
>
> On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 13:03 -0600, Robert Sparks
wrote:
> > I agree - the example is not flawed (at least in the
way the errata
> > reports).
> >
> > Muthu seems to troubled by the reuse of the call-id
and from tag when
> > the initial transaction didn't create a dialog.
> > While doing so is not required by the specification,
nothing makes it
> > illegal either.
>
> Are we agreed that "doing so is not required by the
specification"? In
> RFC 3261, requests that are retried after 401, 407,
413, 415, 416, and
> 420 responses are required to have the same from-tag
as the original
> request. Is 422 different?
>
> Dale
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list
https://www.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://www.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://www.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
