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

Ini-INVITE is always without to-tag which is decided by the UAS. I doesn't 
see anything against with the "1" quoted above from 3261.

Or, please describe your use-case more detailed.

Cheers,

Gao

===================================
 Zip    : 210012
 Tel    : 87211
 Tel2   :(+86)-025-52877211
 e_mail : gao.yang2@zte.com.cn
===================================

"Sreerekha Shenoy (sresheno)" <sresheno@cisco.com> 
2010-03-31 16:27

收件人
"Arunachala" <arun1977@gmail.com>om>, <gao.yang2@zte.com.cn>cn>, <sip@ietf.org>
抄送

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

Thanks Gao, Arun,

RFC 3261 says 
"1. If there is an ongoing INVITE client transaction, the TU MUST
         wait until the transaction reaches the completed or terminated
         state before initiating the new INVITE."

RFC 3578 also mentions abt the first INVITE receiving a response (with a 
To Tag) [1xx/2xx/...]
The subsequent SAM still goes out with a new INVITE without this To-tag 
though.
So in essence, are we saying that we keep ignoring the dialog formation 
and still continue to do INVITEs until no more SAM's happen?

Arent we going against the "1" quoted above from 3261?

Thanks,
Best Regards,
Rekha

-----Original Message-----
From: Arunachala [mailto:arun1977@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:34 AM
To: Sreerekha Shenoy (sresheno)
Cc: sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] Query on RFC 3578 v/s RFC 3261

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)
<sresheno@cisco.com> 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a 
SIP
> implementation.
> Use dispatch@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip.
> Use sipcore@ietf.org for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP
> specifications.
>

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.