[reSIProcate] Invite request and Cseq numbers
12.2.1.1 of the RFC says:
"Therefore, if the local sequence number is not empty, the value of the
local sequence number MUST be
incremented by one, and this value MUST be placed into the CSeq
header field"
If this is the case, then wouldn't I be seeing Cseq numbers increasing
as the dialog
exchange is going on?
Take a look at these two "100" responses I'm getting back....
resiprocate/Transport.cxx:160 | Adding message to tx buffer to: [ V4
213.167.79.25:5060 UDP received on: Transport: [ V4 0.0.0.0:5060 UDP
connectionId=0 ] connectionId=0 ]
resiprocate/Transport.cxx:209 | incoming from: [ V4 213.167.79.25:5060
UDP received on: Transport: [ V4 0.0.0.0:5060 UDP connectionId=0 ]
connectionId=0 ]
resiprocate/TransactionState.cxx:1535 | Send to TU: TU:
DialogUsageManager size=0
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
To: <sip:u218055@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: <sip:u354@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060>;tag=368b0749
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-d87543-7dd0abc84b784a53-1--d87543-;rport
Call-ID: 168292200d150dd4@am9obi1kcmFwZXJzLWNvbXB1dGVyLmxvY2Fs
CSeq: 1 INVITE
User-Agent: RTC/1.3.5369 (OnInstant/0_0)
Content-Length: 0
resiprocate/dum/DialogUsageManager.cxx:830 | Got: SipResp: 100
tid=7dd0abc84b784a53 cseq=INVITE / 1 from(wire)
resiprocate/dum/DialogUsageManager.cxx:1380 |
DialogUsageManager::processResponse:
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
To: <sip:u218055@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: <sip:u354@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060>;tag=368b0749
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-d87543-7dd0abc84b784a53-1--d87543-;rport
Call-ID: 168292200d150dd4@am9obi1kcmFwZXJzLWNvbXB1dGVyLmxvY2Fs
CSeq: 1 INVITE <---- Shouldn't this be Cseq: 2 INVITE
User-Agent: RTC/1.3.5369 (OnInstant/0_0)
Content-Length: 0
BY the way, I'm getting back about 5 or 6 "100 Trying" responses...
is this typical?
Also, I'm not getting any callbacks to my "InviteSessionHandler" or
"OutOfDialogHandler".
Shouldn't I be getting these callbacks, even when I'm getting the "100
Trying" responses?
Perhaps this is my problem, my "InviteSessionHandler" is not getting
"hooked up"
properly such that it's not getting these callbacks? I didn't see any
kind of
errors in the DEBUG logs. Would I get them?
John