[SIPForum-discussion] Is to-tag mandatory ?

[Gyorgy Kovacs]

Hi,

I guess it is.

Regards,
Gyorgy Kovacs

RFC 3261 8.2.6.2 Headers and Tags

The From field of the response MUST equal the From header field of
    the request.  The Call-ID header field of the response MUST equal the
    Call-ID header field of the request.  The CSeq header field of the
    response MUST equal the CSeq field of the request.  The Via header
    field values in the response MUST equal the Via header field values
    in the request and MUST maintain the same ordering.

    If a request contained a To tag in the request, the To header field
    in the response MUST equal that of the request.  However, if the To
    header field in the request did not contain a tag, the URI in the To
    header field in the response MUST equal the URI in the To header
    field; additionally, the UAS MUST add a tag to the To header field in
    the response (with the exception of the 100 (Trying) response, in
    which a tag MAY be present).  This serves to identify the UAS that is
    responding, possibly resulting in a component of a dialog ID.  The
    same tag MUST be used for all responses to that request, both final
    and provisional (again excepting the 100 (Trying)).  Procedures for
    the generation of tags are defined in Section 19.3.



On 07/27/2012 03:09 PM, vikas jain wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Is to-tag mandatory for 3xx-6xx responses ( specially in 302 response 
> ) ? I didn't find it in RFC 3261.
> Please help.
>
> Thanks,
> Vikas Jain
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120727/9026069d/attachment-0002.html>