Thanks Gao, Arun,
RFC 3261 says
"1. If there is an ongoing INVITE client transaction, the TU MUST
wait until the transaction reaches the completed or terminated
state before initiating the new INVITE."
RFC 3578 also mentions abt the first INVITE receiving a response (with a To
Tag) [1xx/2xx/...]
The subsequent SAM still goes out with a new INVITE without this To-tag though.
So in essence, are we saying that we keep ignoring the dialog formation and
still continue to do INVITEs until no more SAM's happen?
Arent we going against the "1" quoted above from 3261?
Thanks,
Best Regards,
Rekha
-----Original Message-----
From: Arunachala [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:34 AM
To: Sreerekha Shenoy (sresheno)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Query on RFC 3578 v/s RFC 3261
Hi,
I don't think are contradictory.
RFC 3261 is talking about an INVITE transaction within a dialog.
Since in the case of RFC 3578, there is NO dialog setup yet, as there
is NO response for the initial INVITE, RFC 3261 Section 14.1 does NOT
hold good here.
Regards,
Arun
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Sreerekha Shenoy (sresheno)
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was reading the RFC 3578 regarding ISUP overlap signaling to SIP.
>
>
>
> In RFC 3578:
>
> 3.2. Generating Multiple INVITEs
>
> ...
>
> If a SAM arrives to the gateway, T10 is refreshed and a new INVITE
>
> with the new digits received is sent. The new INVITE has the same
>
> Call-ID and the same From header field including the tag as the first
>
> INVITE sent, but has an updated Request-URI.
>
>
>
> [This section seems to indicate that the new INVITE happens without awaiting
> the final response for the previous INVITE]
>
>
>
>
>
> In RFC 3261:
>
> 14.1 UAC Behavior
>
> ...
>
> Note that a UAC MUST NOT initiate a new INVITE transaction within a
>
> dialog while another INVITE transaction is in progress in either
>
> direction.
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> I find the two RFCs contradicting each other w.r.t INVITE initiated before
> the previous INVITE transaction was over in case of RFC 3578.
>
> Please let me know if I am wrong in my understanding.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rekha
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
> Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP
> implementation.
> Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip.
> Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP
> specifications.
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP
implementation.
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip.
Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP
specifications.
