Robert,
I agree with most of what you say, but have a comment on one point:
On 8/1/17 12:23 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
Be sure you are aware of (and implementing) the updates to RFC3261. You
really need RFC6026 to answer this question cleanly.
At the top level, this is far enough into "things a
Be sure you are aware of (and implementing) the updates to RFC3261. You
really need RFC6026 to answer this question cleanly.
At the top level, this is far enough into "things are violating
protocol" that the specs aren't going to give algorithmic advice.
The closest they will get is that the
On 7/31/17 11:49 PM, Prakash K wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks a lot, You have put it in a nice way , I understood the use-case
for Forking
But I have the following question
*This all assumes that the 2xx matches an INVITE transaction you have
pending, and that the from-tag and call-id match what w
Hi Paul,
Thanks a lot, You have put it in a nice way , I understood the use-case
for Forking
But I have the following question
*This all assumes that the 2xx matches an INVITE transaction you have
pending, and that the from-tag and call-id match what was in the
corresponding INVITE.Otherwise th
On 7/31/17 11:26 AM, Prakash K wrote:
What would be the behavior of UA when 200 OK received which is not matching
the dialog
"200OK received by UA with different Call-id which is not in context"
I see the following snippet in RFC 3261 which says UA should create
dialog. Wont this end up in ack
nal Message-
>> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of
>> Prakash
>> K
>> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 7:27 PM
>> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> Subject:
mentors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Processing of Standalone 200 OK response for
> INVITE ["200OK received by UA with different Call-id which is not in
> context"]
>
> What would be the behavior of UA when 200 OK received which is not matching
> the dialog
-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Processing of Standalone 200 OK response for
INVITE ["200OK received by UA with different Call-id which is not in
context"]
What would be the behavior of UA when 200 OK received which is not matching
the dialog
"200OK
What would be the behavior of UA when 200 OK received which is not matching
the dialog
"200OK received by UA with different Call-id which is not in context"
I see the following snippet in RFC 3261 which says UA should create
dialog. Wont this end up in acknowledging the hacking?
If the dialog