Re: [Sip-implementors] FROM-TAG(Local Tag) Need - Detailed Explained Req

2019-09-04 Thread Sridhar Kumar N
Dear Anand Thanks for your interest. Agree RFC 3261 is successor for RFC 2543.But from 3261 , i didnt get much details , hence moved to base of RFC2543. Now No where clear picture according to my view. hence i am here to know , if i get this group expertise on below line would reveal my

Re: [Sip-implementors] FROM-TAG(Local Tag) Need - Detailed Explained Req

2019-09-03 Thread Paul Kyzivat
Sridhar, Please do not try to learn SIP from RFC2543. RFC3261 replaced and obsoleted RFC2543 long ago. It is authoritative, but do please note that it has been extended and revised many times. (See the "Updated by" list at the top of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261.) If you are just

Re: [Sip-implementors] FROM-TAG(Local Tag) Need - Detailed Explained Req

2019-09-03 Thread Anand Konji
Hi Sridhar, Refer RFC 3261 which is successor of RFC 2543. Regards, Anand On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, 18:50 Sridhar Kumar N, wrote: > Dear All > od Day, > > While Studying SIP protocal, Stuck at FROM-TAG usage. > TO-TAG usage is clearly explained in RFC2543. But FROM -TAG usage is > written in

[Sip-implementors] FROM-TAG(Local Tag) Need - Detailed Explained Req

2019-09-03 Thread Sridhar Kumar N
Dear All Good Day, While Studying SIP protocal, Stuck at FROM-TAG usage. TO-TAG usage is clearly explained in RFC2543. But FROM -TAG usage is written in 2lines. Can you please elaborate for understanding. If the From address can appear in requests generated by other user agent clients for