[SR-Users] SIP RFC behaviour for 180/200 to_tag mismatch

[Mititelu Stefan]

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for making this clear!

Also I have just found [1] (second paragraph) that enforces what you said.

---
Stefan

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-13.2.2.4

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> On 06.03.18 17:24, Mititelu Stefan wrote:
> > Hi people,
> >
> > I am trying to search for the RFC behavior in case of 180/200 to tag
> > mismatch of an INVITE. From my readings so far, I'm not 100% convinced
> > of the correct behavior.
> >
> > However, there may be a scenario, where this might be plausible:
> > 1. parallel forked two calls
> > 2. 180 ringing comes for first one, but not for second one(various
> > reasons)
> > 3. 200 ok comes for second one
> >
> > Any opinions about this? Do you have some references that will make
> > this 100% clear?
> >
> the UA has to take the tag from 200ok. Provisional responses are not
> mandatory, one can just send directly 200ok. Different tags can come due
> to serial or parallel forking, the the UA must be prepared to handle
> branches of its call until the 200ok is received and then use it to
> complete the dialog.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 5-7, 2018, Berlin - www.asipto.com
> Kamailio World Conference - May 14-16, 2018 - www.kamailioworld.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20180307/cb31623c/attachment.html>