Re: [Sip-implementors] Processing of Standalone 200 OK response for INVITE ["200OK received by UA with different Call-id which is not in context"]

t would be the UA behaviour in above case ? On 31 Jul 2017 10:21 p.m., "Paul Kyzivat" wrote: > 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

Re: [Sip-implementors] Processing of Standalone 200 OK response for INVITE ["200OK received by UA with different Call-id which is not in context"]

not exist. > > > Regards, > Asim Sulaiman > > -Original 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-imple

[Sip-implementors] Processing of Standalone 200 OK response for INVITE ["200OK received by UA with different Call-id which is not in context"]

. *Otherwise, a new dialog in the "confirmed" state MUST be constructed using the procedures of Section 12.1.2.* does this mean UA should generate ACK & immediately followed by BYE should be triggered? -- Thanks Prakash K ___ Sip-implemen

[Sip-implementors] Message Body in ACK other than SDP

Hi All, Is there any usecase or standards/RFC define that ACK method can carry Message body otherthan SDP -- Thanks Prakash K ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip

[Sip-implementors] Reg: Replace Header in REFER Message

n this case Scenario2: Replaces: 12adf2f34456gs5;from-tag=54321;to-tag=12345 whereas if change the order , as mentioned above in scenario2 , server sends 481 -- Thanks Prakash K ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.ed

Re: [Sip-implementors] PRACK Message

; > ___ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > > > > > > > ======

[Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id

sip:8012345614@x.x.x.x:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP x.x.x.x:5060;branch=z9hG4bK09B013f59d419cd8475 From: *"+13109976224" *;tag=gK09005224 To: -- Thanks Prakash K ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.colum

[Sip-implementors] In case of Two Privacy Header or Privacy Header having two values

Hi , Could anyone please clarify the what should be the behavior of SIP Server , when it receives Two Privacy Header Privacy: none Privacy: id or Privacy:none;id which one should take preference. Is it drafted anywhere in RFC. -- Thanks Prakash K