Thanks Worley and Paul,
My scenario is,
UAC B2BUA UaB
| 1:INVITE(SDP) | |
+----------------------->| |
| 2:100[INV] | |
|<-----------------------+ |
| | 3:INVITE(SDP) |
| +----------------------->|
| | 4:D1.183[INV](SDP) |
| |<-----------------------+
| 5:D1.183[INV](SDP) | |
|<-----------------------+ |
| 6:D1.PRACK | |
+----------------------->| |
| | 7:D1.PRACK |
| +----------------------->|
| | 8:D1.200[INV](SDP) |
| |<-----------------------+
| | 9:D1.200[PRA] |
| |<-----------------------+
Where the 200[INVITE] has reached B2BUA before 200[PRACK]. What should be
the behavior of B2BUA as Ua-Client on right side. Or in general what
handling should be done at Ua-client side when this occurs?. Is there any
standard defined to handle this message crossing?
On 25 May 2017 at 23:43, Dale R. Worley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dinoop <[email protected]> writes:
> > How can a B2BUA handle message crossing of 200OK(invite) over
> 200OK(PRACK)?
> > Is it a correct approach for the implementation to reject the
> > 200OK(INVITE) until it receives PRACK response?
> >
> > I have gone through the RFC 6337, unfortunately nothing is mentioned
> about
> > this scenario.
>
> As Paul says, the B2BUA has to behave correctly "on each side". In your
> situation, we would need to see a detailed diagram of the message flow
> you are contemplating before we would know exactly what the situation is
> and what possible strategies the B2BUA could use.
>
--
Thanks & Regards
Dinoop p
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
