In that case invite must be accepted. Thanks and Regards Dheeraj Kumar
Sent from iPhone > On 24-Aug-2016, at 3:39 PM, isshed <isshed....@gmail.com> wrote: > > no to tag is not there > >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, My Gmail <dheerajmaho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Can you please confirm if to tag is available in the invite or not? If yes >> then 481 is expected else it must be accepted. >> >> Thanks and Regards >> Dheeraj Kumar >> >> Sent from iPhone >> >>>> On 24-Aug-2016, at 1:11 PM, isshed <isshed....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:39 AM, My Gmail <dheerajmaho...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> This behavior is in correct. The device should match the dialog. If the >>>> invite doesn't contain to tag then it is a new invite. If it's reinvite >>>> then device must compare call Id, from tag and to tag if it support 3261. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks and Regards >>>> Dheeraj Kumar >>>> >>>> Sent from iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 24-Aug-2016, at 11:19 AM, isshed <isshed....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>> >>>>> I am facing a strange problem. Below is the call flow. >>>>> >>>>> UA1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------UA2 >>>>> 1) <============= call is connected(callid1, ftag1, ttag1) >>>>> ================> >>>>> 2) >>>>> <-----------------------------------------------------------------BYE------------------------------------------- >>>>> 3) >>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------200-BYE-------------------------------------> >>>>> >>>>> 4) <-------------------------------------INVITE with callid1 and new >>>>> from tag tag2----------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is a connected call with dialog id as (callid1, from tag ftag1, >>>>> to tag ttag1). When BYE is received at UA1 it responds with 200 ok and >>>>> starts running Timer J timer(32 seconds). After 5 seconds a new INVITE >>>>> is received by UA1 having same callid as previous call(callid1) and >>>>> new from tag. >>>>> >>>>> UA1 is responding with 481 response? is it correct behaviour.? please >>>>> suggest if anything is there in RFC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sip-implementors mailing list >>>>> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu >>>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors >>> >>> >>> Thanks Deeraj, >>> >>> I don't know if you understood the problem or not. the new Invite is >>> having same call id but different From tag. when already there is call >>> with non-server transaction is in completed state. and time J is >>> running. is it ok to send 481 or accept the call as new call. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
