2011/5/6 Raphael Coeffic <[email protected]>: > On 06.05.11 23:14, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: >> >> This is, such ACK is matched >> by the transport layer so it should never arrive to core/UAS layer in >> which dialogs exist.
Sorry, I meant "the transaction layer". > In fact, ACKs are matched by the transaction layer in SEMS. Last time I > looked at the code, I was also wondering whether or not non-2xx-ACK should > really be passed to the UA layer. They should not :) > Would anybody oppose a patch which would aborb non-200-ACKs, instead of > passing them to the UA layer? Not me. > Or asked differently: can anybody think of a reason for passing those > non-200-ACKs to the application? When a UAS or a proxy replies a [3456]XX response for an INVITE, the core/UA/application logic is done. The arriving ACK never contains information useful for application layer as it's hop by hop (so it doesn't come frrom the call originator) and it's just a message to complete de 3-steps-handshake at transport level (in case of an ACK or 2XX, it completes the handshake at application/core/UA level which is very different). So, for sure an ACK for [3456]XX should never arrive to the core layer. RFC 3261 also states it. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sems mailing list [email protected] http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/sems
