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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no response for a response. So no 481 will be there. Rohit Jain Sent from my iPhone > On 31-Jul-2017, at 9:31 PM, Prakash K wrote: > > How response will be sent for response ? > > UA received 200 OK for INVITE which is sent out ,* but 200 OK received is >

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

How response will be sent for response ? UA received 200 OK for INVITE which is sent out ,* but 200 OK received is with different call-id (wont match the context)* On 31 July 2017 at 21:07, Asim Sulaiman wrote: > Dear Prakash, > > I guess you will get 481 transaction

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

Dear Prakash, I guess you will get 481 transaction does 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-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 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