Re: [Sip] Query on RFC 3578 v/s RFC 3261

[Arunachala <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
   I don't think are contradictory.

  RFC 3261 is talking about an INVITE transaction within a dialog.
Since in the case of RFC 3578, there is NO dialog setup yet, as there
is NO response for the initial INVITE, RFC 3261 Section 14.1 does NOT
hold good here.

Regards,
Arun

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Sreerekha Shenoy (sresheno)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  I was reading the RFC 3578 regarding ISUP overlap signaling to SIP.
>
>
>
> In RFC 3578:
>
> 3.2.  Generating Multiple INVITEs
>
> …
>
> If a SAM arrives to the gateway, T10 is refreshed and a new INVITE
>
>    with the new digits received is sent.  The new INVITE has the same
>
>    Call-ID and the same From header field including the tag as the first
>
>    INVITE sent, but has an updated Request-URI.
>
>
>
> [This section seems to indicate that the new INVITE happens without awaiting
> the final response for the previous INVITE]
>
>
>
>
>
> In RFC 3261:
>
> 14.1 UAC Behavior
>
> …
>
>   Note that a UAC MUST NOT initiate a new INVITE transaction within a
>
>    dialog while another INVITE transaction is in progress in either
>
>    direction.
>
>
>
> …
>
>
>
>  I find the two RFCs contradicting each other w.r.t INVITE initiated before
> the previous INVITE transaction was over in case of RFC 3578.
>
>  Please let me know if I am wrong in my understanding.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rekha
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
> Use [e-mail] for questions on how to develop a SIP
> implementation.
> Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip.
> Use [e-mail] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP
> specifications.
>