Based upon the following snippet, my understanding is that RFC 4028 is correctly following the SHOULD.
RFC 3261 section 8.1.3.5 snippet: "In all of the above cases, the request is retried by creating a new request with the appropriate modifications. This new request constitutes a new transaction and SHOULD have the same value of the Call-ID, To, and From of the previous request, but the CSeq should contain a new sequence number that is one higher than the previous. With other 4xx responses, including those yet to be defined, a retry may or may not be possible depending on the method and the use case." > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dale > Worley > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:14 PM > To: SIP > Subject: Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4028 (1681) > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
