RFC 6026: Correct Transaction Handling for 2xx Responses to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INVITE Requests
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document normatively updates RFC 3261, the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), to address an error in the specified handling of success (2xx class) responses to INVITE requests. Elements following RFC 3261 exactly will misidentify retransmissions of the request as a new, unassociated request. The correction involves modifying the INVITE transaction state machines. The correction also changes the way responses that cannot be matched to an existing transaction are handled to address a security risk. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6026
- Published
- September 2010
- Authors
- R. Sparks; T. Zourzouvillys
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- art
- Pages
- 20
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 3261
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6659Considerations for Deploying the Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions (RAMS) MethodCurrent
July 2012
- RFC 5725Post-Repair Loss RLE Report Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Reports (XRs)Current
February 2010
- RFC 5609State Machines for the Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA)Current
August 2009
- RFC 6642RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extension for a Third-Party Loss ReportCurrent
June 2012
- RFC 6675A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm Based on Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCPCurrent
August 2012
- RFC 7550Issues and Recommendations with Multiple Stateful DHCPv6 OptionsObsoleted
May 2015
- RFC 3517A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCPObsoleted
April 2003
- RFC 6086Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INFO Method and Package FrameworkCurrent
January 2011
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?