"Dale Worley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 01.06.05 10:51:35: > > > From: Anil Bollineni > > > > Assume 100, 200 responses are sent from UAS to client, and > > they are lost. Then INVITE is retransmitted to UAS. As soon > > as UAS send > > 200 OK it destroys the server transaction. Per UAS, the > > dialog state is > > already created after sending 200 response. If INVITE is passed to TU > > from transport layer, then how this INVITE is been treated as > > retransmission of INVITE, since the TU, will not able to match any > > existing dialog (since no to-tag in INVITE), and will it > > treat as a new > > call. Is the assumption correct? Or where in RFC this scenario will be > > treated. > > I believe that the correct handling is that the transport layer will > discover that it is a retransmission of the original INVITE because of the > Via branch-parameter, etc. So the transport layer will re-send its 200 > response, and not notify the TU. > > Dale > Yes, I think so too.
There is the same Call-ID, same from tag and CSeq number is the same. The UAS should be able to recognise that this is a retransmission and should send its last answer (200 OK). Markus > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > __________________________________________________________ Mit WEB.DE FreePhone mit hoechster Qualitaet ab 0 Ct./Min. weltweit telefonieren! http://freephone.web.de/?mc=021201 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
