[SIPForum-techwg] Question of SIP dialog match

[Robert Sparks]

Mike -

The far side must add a to-tag to the responses it sends to your INVITE.
This is how you tell responses from different legs of a forked  
request apart.

RjS

On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:39 PM, mike xu wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In RFC3261 section 12 Dialogs, it said "A dialog is identified at each
> UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag
> and a remote tag".
> And as you know that the first INVITE request has no to-tag, in order
> to match the 200 OK response for the INVITE, could I update the to-tag
> in 200 OK response into my local INVITE's to header? If I it was
> updated then the dialog could be matched without any problem,
> otherwise the dialog couldn't be matched since the first INVITE's
> to-tag is NULL. Does this operation comply with RFC3261?
> Would you like to give me any suggestions on such dialog match  
> problem?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/ 
> listinfo/techwg