On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 13:03 -0600, Robert Sparks wrote: > I agree - the example is not flawed (at least in the way the errata > reports). > > Muthu seems to troubled by the reuse of the call-id and from tag when > the initial transaction didn't create a dialog. > While doing so is not required by the specification, nothing makes it > illegal either.
Are we agreed that "doing so is not required by the specification"? In RFC 3261, requests that are retried after 401, 407, 413, 415, 416, and 420 responses are required to have the same from-tag as the original request. Is 422 different? Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
