Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/4/30 Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailingli...@pernau.at>:
200 OK seems correct as long as the transaction is still in memory.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-9.2
I don't agree. As per RFC 3261 when a proxy receives a 200 for an
INVITE the transaction is terminated so a CANCEL after the 200 should
not match such transaction.
That's a bug in the RFC and we shall not better projects RFC bugs in
implementations :) A well behaving proxy shall keep the context for
some period of time.
Then the proxy should reply 481 to the
CANCEL rather than a 200.
well, once the transaction is gone, forwarding the CANCEL statelessly
would seem a legitimiate behaviour, as long as the proxy is in position
to produce branch ID consistently with that for INVITE.
-jiri
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
