[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Paul
Kyzivat
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:26 PM
To: Brett Tate
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query on Forking
I don't have 2543 committed to memory and am not motivated to go read it
right
Hi All
Is 180 response received without TO tag a forked response?
If the UAC sends an INVITE request and receives the first 180 response without
TO tag and the second 180 response with TO tag
Shall the second 180 response be indentified as forked response or not?
Scenario:
*
...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Tarun2
Gupta
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 5:25 PM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: Preksha .
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Query on Forking
Hi All
Is 180 response received without TO tag a forked response?
If the UAC sends an INVITE
Hi ALL,
till you dont receive the tag in 180, you are not creating any dialogs.
Thus when you receive 180 WO to tag you will not create any dialog and just
update the call state .
The concept of forking and stuff comes when you receive multiple 18x with
different To-tags.
cheers!!
sarvpriya
On
Is 180 response received without TO tag a forked response?
A 18x without To tag is non compliant; see rfc3261 section 8.2.6.2. Thus the
UAC has to decide how it wants handle the abnormal situation.
RFC 2543 did not always require tags to form dialogs; however RFC 3261 does.
Thus various
I don't have 2543 committed to memory and am not motivated to go read it
right now. But as Brett says, I think you can get a 180 w/o to-tag from
a 2543 compatible UAS. If you subsequently get a 1xx with a to-tag then
I guess you have two early dialogs. (But I'm not certain 2543 had the
notion
