Raymond Dans wrote:
> Hi all,
>    In looking at Call Detail Recording, I ran into an issue where
> records were not being closed off in abandoned call scenarios.  Upon
> closer investigation, I noticed that a call failure state event wasn't
> being generated in the Proxy because of an apparent change in the 408
> Request Timeout SIP message.   The criteria for generating a call
> failure state event in this scenario was to look at the "To tag" of the
> 408 Request Timemout message.  If it was nil then the event was
> generated and otherwise it was not.
> 
>    In SipXecs 3.10.x, the abandoned scenario would have a nil  "To tag"
> so the CDR record was correctly closed off.  In 3.11.5, the "To tag" in
> this scenario is not nil and as a result the record is never closed off
> and appears in the active calls list for some time (around 8 hours).
> 
>    Deos anyone know if the change in the 408 message was intentional or
> is this a bug that should be reported.  Looking at the RFC doesn't
> really give a clear answer (to me anyways) as to whether or not the
> ToTag should be present.
> 

I believe the behavior is correct. RFC 3261 Section 8.2.6.2. states

"If a request contained a To tag in the request, the To header field in the 
response MUST equal that of the request. However, if the To header field in the 
request did not contain a tag, the URI in the To header field in the response 
MUST equal the URI in the To header field; additionally, the UAS MUST add a tag 
to the To header field in the response (with the exception of the 100 (Trying) 
response, in which a tag MAY be present).  This serves to identify the UAS that 
is responding, possibly resulting in a component of a dialog ID.  The same tag 
MUST be used for all responses to that request, both final and provisional 
(again excepting the 100 (Trying))."

So as far as I understand, any responses (except 100 Trying) to a Request MUST 
contain a to-tag. If there was a to-tag already present in the Request then you 
must echo that, otherwise you MUST generate a new one and include that.


Arjun
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev

Reply via email to