> From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [i...@aliax.net]
>
> > And the SIP
> > element can process a set of incoming requests in any order it
> > chooses, because the sender has no way to tell how the network may
> > have reordered the requests (for UDP anyway).
>
> But if the UAC sends OPTIONS (Cseq 10) follo
plementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Paul
> Kyzivat
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:10 PM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Is it allowed to send an in-dialog request
> while a previous in-dialog request (in same directio
send an in-dialog request
while a previous in-dialog request (in same direction) has no final
response?
On 4/10/12 11:25 AM, Nataraju A.B wrote:
>> 2) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = INVITE
>>
>> What should reply bob for the second INVITE?
>>
> [ABN] this is an
2012/4/10 Worley, Dale R (Dale) :
> Of course, this sort of atomic processing doesn't happen in reality,
> but the SIP element has to simulate atomic processing. This sounds
> difficult, but generally it just means to not start processing one
> request until the previous request has been completed
2012/4/10 Paul Kyzivat :
> But this can be useful/important in certain cases. The one I have
> thought about is NOTIFY. If you have a dialog event package where each
> notification sends complete state, then it could be appropriate to send
> a notify each time the state changes, even if an outstan
2012/4/10 Brett Tate :
> RFC 3261 14.2 UAS Behavior
>
> Section 13.3.1 describes the procedure for distinguishing incoming
> re-INVITEs from incoming initial INVITEs and handling a re-INVITE for
> an existing dialog.
>
> A UAS that receives a second INVITE before it sends the final
> resp
> From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [i...@aliax.net]
>
> Hi, what should do a UAS that receives an in-dialog request while it
> has not yet replied a final response for a previous in-dialog
> request?:
There are a few general principles to be taken into account:
We appear to be discussing processing requ
On 4/10/12 11:44 AM, Brett Tate wrote:
2) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = INVITE
What should reply bob for the second INVITE?
>>>
>>> [ABN] this is an incorrect behavior from UAC. because this (2nd
>> INVITE)
>>> lead to overlapped offer-answer request. In this case it is expe
On 4/10/12 10:48 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi, what should do a UAS that receives an in-dialog request while it
> has not yet replied a final response for a previous in-dialog
> request?:
>
>
>alice bob
>-
>
>INVITE --->
>
> >> 2) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = INVITE
> >>
> >> What should reply bob for the second INVITE?
> >
> > [ABN] this is an incorrect behavior from UAC. because this (2nd
> INVITE)
> > lead to overlapped offer-answer request. In this case it is expected
> that
> > UAS reply with 491 Reque
On 4/10/12 11:25 AM, Nataraju A.B wrote:
>> 2) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = INVITE
>>
>> What should reply bob for the second INVITE?
>>
> [ABN] this is an incorrect behavior from UAC. because this (2nd INVITE)
> lead to overlapped offer-answer request. In this case it is expected that
>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Nataraju A.B wrote:
> comments inline...
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>
>> 2012/4/10 Shanbhag, Somesh (NSN - IN/Bangalore) > >:
>>
>> 1) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = BYE
>> > (1) Yes, Definitely BYE has higher precedence
2012/4/10 Nataraju A.B :
>> 1) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = BYE
>>
>> Should bob reply 200 to the BYE and later a final response for the INVITE?
>
> [ABN] Yes, it must reply BYE with 200.
> If the INVITE is received by UAS after sending 200-BYE, then INVITE must be
> replied with FINAL er
comments inline...
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2012/4/10 Shanbhag, Somesh (NSN - IN/Bangalore) :
>
> 1) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = BYE
> > (1) Yes, Definitely BYE has higher precedence and should be honored.
>
> Makes sense.
>
>
>
> 2) IN-DIALOG-1 = I
2012/4/10 Shanbhag, Somesh (NSN - IN/Bangalore) :
1) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = BYE
> (1) Yes, Definitely BYE has higher precedence and should be honored.
Makes sense.
2) IN-DIALOG-1 = INVITE, IN-DIALOG-2 = INVITE
> (2) 491 Request Pending should be sent.
Why? RFC 3261 section 14
comments inline...
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi, what should do a UAS that receives an in-dialog request while it
> has not yet replied a final response for a previous in-dialog
> request?:
>
[ABN] At any point in time, it is allowed to have more than one non-I
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of ext Iñaki
Baz Castillo
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:48 PM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Is it allowed to send an in-dialog request while a
previous in-dialog request (in same direction) has
Hi, what should do a UAS that receives an in-dialog request while it
has not yet replied a final response for a previous in-dialog
request?:
alice bob
-
INVITE --->
<- 200
ACK >
IN-DIALO
18 matches
Mail list logo
