RFC 5057: Multiple Dialog Usages in the Session Initiation Protocol
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Several methods in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) can create an association between endpoints known as a dialog. Some of these methods can also create a different, but related, association within an existing dialog. These multiple associations, or dialog usages, require carefully coordinated processing as they have independent life-cycles, but share common dialog state. Processing multiple dialog usages correctly is not completely understood. What is understood is difficult to implement. This memo argues that multiple dialog usages should be avoided. It discusses alternatives to their use and clarifies essential behavior for elements that cannot currently avoid them. This is an informative document and makes no normative statements of any kind. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5057
- Published
- November 2007
- Authors
- R. Sparks
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rai
- Pages
- 26
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5067Infrastructure ENUM RequirementsCurrent
November 2007
- RFC 5039The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and SpamCurrent
January 2008
- RFC 5076ENUM Validation Information Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning ProtocolCurrent
December 2007
- RFC 5079Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Current
December 2007
- RFC 5028A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for Instant Messaging (IM) ServicesUpdated
October 2007
- RFC 5025Presence Authorization RulesCurrent
December 2007
- RFC 5018Connection Establishment in the Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)Updated
September 2007
- RFC 5104Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF)Updated
February 2008
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?