On 3/25/18 7:06 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
My perplexion is rooted precisely in the fact that no dialog has been
established upon a negative final reply to the invite transaction.
While I agree that logically the to-tag is in some cases unnecessary in
cases like this, the fact is that 3261 requires that the tag be present.
It would make no sense to try to change that at this late time. So the
UAS should simply do as it is required to do - generate a tag and put it
in the response.
Thanks,
Paul
On March 25, 2018 6:27:03 PM EDT, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
On 3/25/18 5:26 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Hi,
Are 407 challenges meant to have a To tag? If so, I can't find the
rationale in 3261. Any pointers would be appreciated.
(working from memory)
An argument against to-tag in 407 would presumably apply equally to any
3xx, 4xx, 5xx, or 6xx. One could argue that the to-tag is for
establishing a dialog, and if no dialog has been established then it
isn't needed.
OTOH, AFAIK the requirement to include a to-tag is across the board.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
-- Alex
--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
