Re: [Sip] INVITE after a terminated dialog?

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Tue, 18 December 2007 16:16 UTC

Return-path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4f79-0006O7-AE; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:16:15 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J4f77-0006E9-O5 for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:16:13 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4f76-0006Ck-OS for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:16:12 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4f76-0007tI-Bx for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:16:12 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Dec 2007 11:16:12 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBIGGCjd020143; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:16:12 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBIGGBvP009478; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:16:12 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:16:10 -0500
Received: from [161.44.174.118] ([161.44.174.118]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:16:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4767F24B.3040303@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:16:11 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jane Jiang <janej@hq.speakeasy.net>
Subject: Re: [Sip] INVITE after a terminated dialog?
References: <DED0424C02C83A4AB0419517605CD11E02F5D32D@EXCHANGE-BE2.speakeasy.hq>
In-Reply-To: <DED0424C02C83A4AB0419517605CD11E02F5D32D@EXCHANGE-BE2.speakeasy.hq>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2007 16:16:10.0230 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D421960:01C84191]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2059; t=1197994572; x=1198858572; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sip]=20INVITE=20after=20a=20terminated =20dialog? |Sender:=20 |To:=20Jane=20Jiang=20<janej@hq.speakeasy.net>; bh=rCBpfwwoVOaBNlui4NKnKqnHVz0LwHDPEP2tTDInKJs=; b=z729SrIdQ40noTR2v2ZxGGq2RZwN7oG8kctnleIMaRzLWLX2Vl5f6NaGTE QsZDG8xpw2C+HxDYQx/rUtSYIekc7ceGZK07tfm9AkXTO0wLqsmarc5SMDZb v+ZGgSiCI7;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc: sip@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

Jane,

Can you provide a call flow for what is happening? Its a little hard to 
follow from the textual description.

But in the meantime there is one fundamental principle of importance 
here: every transaction completes independently.

Jane Jiang wrote:
> Hi All,
>  
> There is a weird situation with us:
> (1) A Linksys phone sends an INVITE out with incorrect destination TN.  
> As a result, our application server will set up a call between the 
> Linksys phone and an IVR
> (2) A user incorrectly hits the on-hold key, which is basically sending 
> a re-INVITE to the IVR
> (3) Our server seems to have answered the re-INVITE with a BYE
> (4) The Linksys phone responds to the BYE with a 200
> (5) Afterwards, the Linksys phone still thinks that its original 
> re-INVITE has not been responded.  So, it will keep resend re-INVITE
>  
> The consequence of these re-INVITEs is a registration migration, which 
> we don't like.  We have been trying to figure out which side is not 
> following RFC 3261, the phone, the SBCs are wrong, or the application 
> servers.
>  
> I am wondering:
> (A) Is it legal for a server to ignore the re-INVITE and respond with a 
> BYE and has nothing in between?

While the BYE may in some way have been provoked by the reINVITE, the 
two are distinct. The reINVITE still needs to be answered with some 
final response which then must be ACKed, and the BYE also needs to be 
responded to.

> (B) If a UA has responded to a BYE with 200, is it supposed to forget 
> about the re-INVITE request that it has sent out and not try to resend 
> the re-INVITE, assuming a dialog has already been terminated with the 
> BYE/200 transaction?  Maybe in another sentence, is it legal to send our 
> re-INVITEs outside an dialog, even if these re-INVITEs are the repeats 
> of an original in-dialog re-INVITE?

It is not legal to send a *new* reINVITE after the dialog has been 
terminated. But it is appropriate to continue retransmissions if no 
response has been received.

	Paul


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip