==================================================================================================
NOTICE: My email id is changed, please reply to new from address.
And also update your address book.
==================================================================================================
Hi Leonid Fainshtein,
If ACK is lost because of other network and has not reached UAS, UAS should
retransmit 200 OK which tells UAC to retransmit the ACK.
Probably 491 is a better option for responding to second re-Invite until it
receives ACK for the first re-Invite.
Thanks,
Raghu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leonid Fainshtein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "P Thejeswara Reddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Miss-ordered re-INVITE request
> Hi Thejeswara,
> The problem is that UAC does send ACK but it is sometimes lost because
> of other network equipment. Will 491 response a clear indication for UAC
> to resend the ACK?
>
> BTW, response 400 is sent by your (Flextronics) ToolKit v.2.2.0. I
> submitted CSR about this problem recently.
>
> Best regards,
> Leonid Fainshtein
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: P Thejeswara Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 9:08 AM
> To: Leonid Fainshtein
> Cc: Jeroen van Bemmel; [email protected];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Miss-ordered re-INVITE request
>
>
>
>
> Leonid,
>
> UAS sends 491. when A UAS that receives an INVITE on a dialog while an
> INVITE it had sent on that dialog is in progress MUST
> return a 491 (Request Pending) response to the received INVITE.
>
> In this case the problem is with UAC, because it sending reinvite before
> ACK.
>
> thanks
> thejeswara reddy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Leonid Fainshtein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 05/21/2006 02:16 PM
>
>
> To
> "Jeroen van Bemmel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc
> [email protected]
> Subject
> Re: [Sip-implementors] Miss-ordered re-INVITE request
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeroen,
> Yes, it makes sense.
> Thank you,
> Leonid
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 9:44 AM
> To: Leonid Fainshtein
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Miss-ordered re-INVITE request
>
> Leonid,
>
> What the UAS needs to ensure here, is that the UAC got its answer (or
> offer) in the 2xx to the reINVITE. Before it receives the ACK it cannot
> be certain of that, so a new reINVITE should be refused.
>
> It would probably be better to send a 491 Request Pending, to set the
> UAC's random backoff timer. I agree that the text in RFC3261 is not
> clear on this point
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeroen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leonid Fainshtein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jeroen van Bemmel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 8:24 AM
> Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Miss-ordered re-INVITE request
>
>
> In section 14.2 of RFC-3261 written the following:
>
> A UAS that receives a second INVITE before it sends the final
> response to a first INVITE with a lower CSeq sequence number on the
> same dialog MUST return a 500 (Server Internal Error) response to the
> second INVITE and MUST include a Retry-After header field with a
> randomly chosen value of between 0 and 10 seconds.
>
> In my scenario the UAS has sent the final response and waiting for the
> confirmation (ACK)... So it is not exactly the same case as described in
> 14.2....
>
> Leonid
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 9:39 PM
> To: Leonid Fainshtein
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Miss-ordered re-INVITE request
>
> Leonid,
>
> It MUST send a 500 response with Retry-After, see RFC3261 section 14.2.
> Furthermore, if it doesn't receive the ACK it SHOULD generate a BYE
>
> Regards,
>
> jeroen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leonid Fainshtein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 9:24 PM
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Miss-ordered re-INVITE request
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is the following UAS behavior correct?
> >
> > UA-1 UA-2
> > ------INVITE --------->
> > <------200 ------------
> > ------- ACK ---------->
> > ------ re-INVITE-1----->
> > <------200 ------------
> >
> > ------ re-INVITE-2----->
> > <------ 400( with Retry-After header) ----
> >
> > As you can see, the second re-INVITE arrives to the UAS when the
> > previous re-INVITE transaction is not confirmed yet (ACK is not
> > received).
> > What should UAS do in this situation? Silently ignore re-INVITE2?
> Reject
> > it with response 400 or 500?
> > Thanks,
> > Leonid
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip-implementors mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
>
>
> *********************** FSS-Private ***********************
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
=======================================
Tech Mahindra, formerly Mahindra-British Telecom and Axes Technologies.
Disclaimer:
The contents of this E-mail (including the contents of the enclosure(s) or
attachment(s) if any) are privileged and confidential material of Tech Mahindra
and should not be disclosed to, used by or copied in any manner by anyone other
than the intended addressee(s). In case you are not the desired addressee, you
should delete this message and/or re-direct it to the sender. The views
expressed in this E-mail message (including the enclosure(s) or attachment(s)
if any) are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of Tech Mahindra.
This e-mail message including attachment/(s), if any, is believed to be free of
any virus. However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it
is virus free and Tech Mahindra is not responsible for any loss or damage
arising in any way from its use.
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
