24 Apr
2012
24 Apr
'12
9:55 a.m.
24 apr 2012 kl. 14:27 skrev Daniel-Constantin Mierla:
Hello,
thanks, I found that as well, but I didn't wanted to believe is no update to it in
regard to sip client behavior. A phone replying with such generic code is really
misleading for such case . So I searched further in 4xx class, base rfc and other
extensions, and could not find anything.
You propably want to add a reason header or something to explain for the poor guy
running wireshark.
The error code is not all.
/O
Cheers,
Danie
On 4/24/12 2:17 PM, Andrew Pogrebennyk wrote:
---
* Olle E Johansson - oej(a)edvina.net
* Cell phone +46 70 593 68 51, Office +46 8 96 40 20, Sweden
Hi Daniel,
See RFC 3261 section 12.2.2:
If the remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence number
of the request is lower than the remote sequence number, the request
is out of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal
Error) response.
However, 400 or some 4xx response would seem more reasonable to me, to
let the UAC know it just did something wrong.
And I'm not the only one:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sip-implementors/8970
On 04/24/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if someone here can point quickly where specs mention
> what is the right reply code to send when a request within dialog is
> received with lower cseq value than the previous request. I couldn't
> spot the part in the RFC yet, if any related exists.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users