Thanks everybody for the responses!
I will get back to you when I get a clear understanding of the involved
mechanism.
Best regards,
Andrew
On 10/05/2017 03:21 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> There is at least this consideration: The B2BUA can generate multiple
> outgoing *dialogs* from one
Hi,
I understand that there is no normative document for a B2BUA but in
general as common sense dictates should the B2BUAs that generate
multiple outgoing requests on their UAC side for a single incoming
request due to parallel forking create unique From-tags or reuse the
same From tag in every
cancelled. Using the same values
for these header fields allows the CANCEL to be matched with the
request it cancels (Section 9.2 indicates how such matching occurs).
So To and From should be universally the same.
--
Sincerely,
Andrew Pogrebennyk
.
So, where would you vote for based on RFCs? If any different idea, please let
me know.
I'm not aware of any standards or drafts that describe the above
variants. And RFC 5373 defines yet another special header Answer-Mode.
--
Sincerely,
Andrew Pogrebennyk
. Thanks,
--
Sincerely,
Andrew Pogrebennyk
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
RFC3261 and considers the message being invalid ?
Regards,
Kurt
--
Sincerely,
Andrew Pogrebennyk
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
, which
did not have to insert the branch parameter.
MS Messenger does not put the branch parameter, for example ;-)
Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
What type of error are you getting? There's no branch param in the Via
header, which is mandatory.
-hadriel
--
Andrew Pogrebennyk
PortaOne, Inc., QA
