> -----Original Message-----
> From:
sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:
sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dale
> Worley
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:14 PM
> To: SIP
> Subject: Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4028 (1681)
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use
sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use
sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use
sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use
sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip