Hey Brett, Tags are all same i made a typo only the URI in the ACK is changed.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Brett Tate <[email protected]> wrote: >> My phone has got an INVITE with the following field >> >> From: <sip:[email protected]>1234 >> To: <sip:[email protected]> >> >> then it sends 200-INVITE as follows >> From: <sip:[email protected]>123444 >> To: <sip:[email protected]>432144 > > The 200 response is malformed if it was supposed to correlate to the > mentioned INVITE. The From tag changed. > > >> Then my phone is receiving ACK as >> From: <sip:[email protected]>123444 >> To: <sip:[email protected]>432144 > > The ACK is malformed if it supposed to correspond the mentioned 200 > response since the From URI changed. > > >> should my phone accept it and stop responding 200-INVITE? > > Maybe. :) Malformed messages can basically be handled however the device > prefers. However, RFC 3261 (section 17.1.3 and section 17.2.3) > transaction matching rules concerning magic cookies is way too lenient in > my opinion since it allows matching ridiculously malformed messages. For > instance, it doesn't even require that the Call-ID header be correct. > > The device that sent the malformed 200 response should be fixed to quit > sending the wrong From tag. > > The device that sent the malformed ACK should be fixed to quit sending the > wrong From URI. RFC 3261 and RFC 4916 do not provide a mechanism use ACK > to update the From's URI. > > -- > > This email is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If > you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, > please notify BroadSoft, Inc. immediately by replying to this message, and > destroy all copies of this message, along with any attachment, prior to > reading, distributing or copying it. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
