Hi Daniel, Thank you for making this clear!
Also I have just found  (second paragraph) that enforces what you said. --- Stefan  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-126.96.36.199 On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > On 06.03.18 17:24, Mititelu Stefan wrote: > > Hi people, > > > > I am trying to search for the RFC behavior in case of 180/200 to tag > > mismatch of an INVITE. From my readings so far, I'm not 100% convinced > > of the correct behavior. > > > > However, there may be a scenario, where this might be plausible: > > 1. parallel forked two calls > > 2. 180 ringing comes for first one, but not for second one(various > > reasons) > > 3. 200 ok comes for second one > > > > Any opinions about this? Do you have some references that will make > > this 100% clear? > > > the UA has to take the tag from 200ok. Provisional responses are not > mandatory, one can just send directly 200ok. Different tags can come due > to serial or parallel forking, the the UA must be prepared to handle > branches of its call until the 200ok is received and then use it to > complete the dialog. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > Kamailio Advanced Training - March 5-7, 2018, Berlin - www.asipto.com > Kamailio World Conference - May 14-16, 2018 - www.kamailioworld.com > >
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users