Hi Markus, If the re-INVITE-1 led to delayed negotiation scenario, I mean re-INVITE-1 without SDP, then offer/answer negotiation would be completed only when ACK for re-INVITE-1 is received. Till that time we can't process any more INVITE requests for offer/answer negotiation... hence re-INVITE-2 should be rejected by 491 response...
Note: There could only one offer/answer negotiation happening aty any point in time... Regards, Nataraju A.B. -----Original Message----- From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 5/23/2006 5:56 AM To: Nataraju Basavaraju Cc: Leonid Fainshtein; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Miss-ordered re-INVITE request Hi Nataraju, > [ABN] probably we may not be able to handle this way always. asuume the > scenario, delayed negotiation scenarion with re-INVITE-1 and ACK is not > been received, the offer/answer negotiation is still open, hence it > should be rejected by 491 response. Where in the RFC 3261? Regards, Markus Nataraju Basavaraju wrote: > comments inline... > > Regards, > Nataraju A.B. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Markus Hofmann > Sent: Tue 5/23/2006 4:07 AM > To: Leonid Fainshtein > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Miss-ordered re-INVITE request > > Hi Leonid, > > in my opinion a 200 OK for the second Re-INVITE should be the right > answer. The Re-INVITE-1/200 OK transaction is over the ACK transaction > is started (which I do not see in you example). So it seems that UA-1 > does not work rfc 3261 conform. But this scenario can happen through > network problems that an new Re-INVITE-2 is faster as an ACK (RE-INVITE-1). > > If you will never receive an ACK for the Re-INVITE-1 you UA-2 (tries to > get an ACK be retransmit 200 OK (Re-INVIT-1) must send a BYE. I think > the race condition does not affect the signalling and the the media path. > > [ABN] probably we may not be able to handle this way always. asuume the > scenario, delayed negotiation scenarion with re-INVITE-1 and ACK is not > been received, the offer/answer negotiation is still open, hence it > should be rejected by 491 response. > > if it is a early media call, re-INVITE-2 could be accepted by 200OK... > > Regards, > Markus > > > Leonid Fainshtein wrote: >> 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 > > > > > The information contained in this message may be confidential to Kodiak > Networks, Inc. and its subsidiaries and protected from disclosure. If > this message did not reach the intended recipient, or an employee or > agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby informed that any distribution or copying of this communication > is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender of the message and then > delete the message. Thank you _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
