List Info

Thread: To-tag in CANCEL response
To-tag in CANCEL response
country flaguser name
Sweden		 2007-12-10 10:24:13 

  


  

    Hi,

I'm a bit confused about which is the correct behavior for the CANCEL response handling with regard to the To-tag. There seems to be contradiction between RFC3261 and RFC3665. 

Here's the scenario: (as stated in RFC3665, section: 3.8)

   Alice           Proxy 1          Proxy 2            Bob
     |                |                |                |
     |   INVITE F1    |                |                |
     |--------------->|   INVITE F2    |                |
     |     100  F3    |--------------->|   INVITE F4    |
     |<---------------|     100  F5    |--------------->|
     |                |<---------------|                |
     |                |                |      180 F6    |
     |                |     180 F7     |<---------------|
     |     180 F8     |<---------------|                |
     |<---------------|                |                |
     |   CANCEL F9    |    
            |                |
     |--------------->|                |                |
     |     200 F10    |                |                |
     |<---------------|   CANCEL F11   |                |
     |                |--------------->|                |
     |                |     200 F12    |                |
     |                |<---------------|                |
     |                |                |   CANCEL F13   |
     |                |                |--------------->|
     |                |                |     200 F14    |
     |                |                |<---------------|
     |                |                |     487 F15    |
     |                |                |<---------------|
     |                |                |     ACK F16    |
     |                |     487 F17    |--------------->|
     |                |<---------------|                |
     |      
          |     ACK F18    |                |
     |     487 F19    |--------------->|                |
     |<---------------|                |                |
     |     ACK F20    |                |                |
     |--------------->|                |                |
     |                |                |                |

Questions:

1) All the 200 OK for the CANCEL responses do not contain any To-tags. But according to RFC3261 section 16.10, a stateful proxy should act as a UAS, which then require the response to have a To-tag. Isn't it?

2) Assume that CANCEL response should contain a To-tag, then what tag should it use? The same one as in the 180 response, which then should match the 487 response for INVITE as well?

3) If the proxy never received any provisional response, except for 100 trying, meaning it has not received any To-tag, then when it received the CANCEL request, should it generate a local
 To-tag in the response? 

4) And since RFC3261 only stated that the To-tag in the CANCEL response SHOULD, not MUST, matches the one in the 487 response, I suppose it is OK to pass the 487 response from the UAS (Bob) towards the UAC (Alice) without changing the To-tag to match the one in the CANCEL response?

Hope someone could clarify it. Thanks for your time.

Best Regards,
Tonny
 


      
Yahoo! ºô¤W¦w¥þ§ð²¤¡A±Ð§A¦p¦ó¨¾½d¶Â«È! ¤F¸Ñ§ó¦h

  

  
  
   
     
    






 [1]











   
 





about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )