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 of early dialogs.) Presumably you could get a 200 w/o to-tag, and
another with to-tag. In that case you would have to confront two dialogs.
But are there any UAs out there today that support 2543 and not 3261?
Its been a *looooog* time.
Thanks,
Paul
Brett Tate wrote:
>> 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 vendors likely handle the abnormal situation differently.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
