THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, DO NOT REPLY. The following task has a new comment added: FS#152 - t_reply 302 redirects use wrong to-tag after fr_inv_timer fires User who did this - Daniel-Constantin Mierla (miconda) ---------- Hi Andrew, is this really SIP RFC requirement or even compliant? Thinking of serial/parallel forking, several and different To-tags can go back to caller within many 1xx replies. They have to be discarded and the one in final reply has to be considered good, so IMO the phone is buggy. What happens if there is a parallel forking and there are many 1xx, but then timeout and 302? Which branch is considered good? Furthermore, one may have the redirect server as separate Kamailio instance, so on timeout of previous branches a new one is sent to redirect server which replies directly 302, having no idea of the branches in main proxy. What happens then, polycom will ignore it? I understand it solves an issue with some Polycoms, but I don't think it is the right approach to make this default in the proxy. Ideally Polycom will solve the bug. If it has to be "fixed" in the proxy, then it has to be something optional/configurable, with at less impact as possible on default behaviour. ---------- More information can be found at the following URL: http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=152#comment2… You are receiving this message because you have requested it from the Flyspray bugtracking system. If you did not expect this message or don't want to receive mails in future, you can change your notification settings at the URL shown above.