[SIPForum-discussion] call-id and cseq relation -> rfc 3261 clarification help required

[Stephen James]

I would think that this would only apply if the Call-ID was the same. Reading 
section 10.2

Call-ID: All registrations from a UAC SHOULD use the same Call-ID            
header field value for registrations sent to a particular            registrar.             
If the same client were to use different Call-ID values, a            registrar 
could not detect whether a delayed REGISTER request            might have 
arrived out of order. 


This says the AGCF should use the same Call-ID, so it must increment the CSeq. 
Stephen James 
sjames_1958 at yahoo.com
 
We are not princes of the earth, we are the descendants of worms, and any 
nobility must be earned.





________________________________
From: "SAKCA, HALIT (HALIT)" <halit.sakca at alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "discussion at sipforum.org" <discussion at sipforum.org>
Sent: Tue, April 2, 2013 11:53:49 PM
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] call-id and cseq relation -> rfc 3261 
clarification help required

 Dear All,
 
Could you please help me to figure out following scenario and RFC 3261 
statement?
A sip call with auth;
	1. Agcf -> INVITE  -> scscf 
	2. Agcf <- 407  <- scscf
	3. Agcf -> INVITE  -> scscf
.
.
.
 
The INVITE in 3rd has a different call-id than the INVITE in 1st,
I see in RFC that;
 
RFC 3261 clause 22.2 states (at the end of the clause):
 
   When a UAC resubmits a request with its credentials after receiving a
   401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) response,
   it MUST increment the CSeq header field value as it would normally
   when sending an updated request.
 
Does ‘Incrementing Cseq’ basically means that the CallID remains the same?
I am wondering if it is only in case the UAC RESUBMITS a request.
In request above we don't resubmit so we don't have to follow this rule.
The UAC is not obliged to resubmit. 
 
Am I correct?
 
Regards,
Halit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130403/062b8bb4/attachment-0002.html>