Hi all,
I have a a doubt related with RFC 4028 - Session Timers in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). I am developing a new ser module that supports this RFC. While doing tests, I found the following situation:
phone1(addpac) SER phone 2 (grandstream)
Invite -> <-422 (Lower Min-SE) Ack -> Invite -> Invite -> <-481 (no such call) <-481 (no such call)
What I saw was that, in the second Invite, the addpac sends the Invite with the the "to tag" that was attached by SER before (422 response). I belive that this is the reason of the 481 response from grandstream. I think it is a bug of Addpac. Is that correct?
Thanks in advance!
From: Jorge Crichigno Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:39 AM
What I saw was that, in the second Invite, the addpac sends the Invite with the the "to tag" that was attached by SER before (422 response). I belive that this is the reason of the 481 response from grandstream. I think it is a bug of Addpac. Is that correct?
Yes. It is correct.
A To-tag MUST NOT be attached by the UAC outside of a dialog and a dialog does not exist, because a failure response (422) does not create a dialog.
Franz
Hi Franz,
Thank for response me. The situation is more clear now.
Jorge
----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Edler" franz.edler@ycn.com To: "'Jorge Crichigno'" jcrichigno@conexion.com.py; serusers@lists.iptel.org; serdev@lists.iptel.org Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 3:49 PM Subject: RE: [Serdev] session Timers
From: Jorge Crichigno Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:39 AM
What I saw was that, in the second Invite, the addpac sends the Invite with the the "to tag" that was attached by SER before (422 response). I belive that this is the reason of the 481 response from grandstream. I think it is a bug of Addpac. Is that correct?
Yes. It is correct.
A To-tag MUST NOT be attached by the UAC outside of a dialog and a dialog does not exist, because a failure response (422) does not create a dialog.
Franz
-
Franz Edler -
Jorge Crichigno