Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4028 (1681)

["Dale Worley" <dworley at nortel.com>]

On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 13:03 -0600, Robert Sparks wrote:
> I agree - the example is not flawed (at least in the way the errata  
> reports).
> 
> Muthu seems to troubled by the reuse of the call-id and from tag when  
> the initial transaction didn't create a dialog.
> While doing so is not required by the specification, nothing makes it  
> illegal either.

Are we agreed that "doing so is not required by the specification"?  In
RFC 3261, requests that are retried after 401, 407, 413, 415, 416, and
420 responses are required to have the same from-tag as the original
request.  Is 422 different?

Dale