Corrected list address.
Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi Bogdan,
Yes, and I also read some older discussions about this topic like http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg03071.html but still I'm quite uneasy regarding the phrasing in RFC3261 saying "that the To tag of the response to the CANCEL and the To tag in the response to the original request SHOULD be the same". It doesn't clearly state to which response it refers - the final 487 for the INVITE or maybe to possible 180/183 (although I understand the consequences and implications of parallel forking etc.).
I currently don't have a trace available, but is the To-tag in the 200 to the CANCEL really the same as the To-tag in 487 to the INVITE, as the RFC suggests, or is the 487 just passed through?
Andreas
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi Andreas,
Have you went through this:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1818469&gro...
There is also a reference to a discussion (on the topic) on sip implementers list.
Regards, Bogdan
Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi,
Actually, someone pointed out a previous discussion about that issue. Interesting read. http://www.openser.org/pipermail/users/2007-October/014049.html
Andreas
Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi,
One more question regarding the CANCEL processing:
RFC says in ยง9.2 regarding the 200 for a CANCEL:
#+ This response is constructed following the procedures described in Section 8.2.6 noting that the To tag of the response to the CANCEL and the To tag in the response to the original request SHOULD be the same. #-
OpenSER (1.3.1) on the other hand does generate a different To-tag and doesn't use the one from the response of the original request. Why is that? Anything we can do about this?
Best regards, Andreas
Users mailing list Users@lists.openser.org http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users