See inline.
Thanks,
Shail
Vijay Gurbani wrote:
>
> Shail Bhatnagar wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, why won't it? If the proxy forked > 1 branches downstream, it will
> > > probably wait until all branches got back to it and assuming none of the
> > > branches returned a 200 OK, send the best response upstream.
> >
> > Then it would forward every 487 that it receives from downstream.
>
> Well, not quite. It will forward one 487 if multiple of them are received.
> A proxy forwards multiple 401 and 407 responses, but it should only forward
> one 487.
Is the above line a quote from one of Jonathan's email or
somewhere in the bis draft ? ?
>
> > Are you suggesting that on receiving a CANCEL, the stateful proxy should
> > 200 OK this CANCEL and also return a 487 response to INVITE ?
>
> Yes. On receiving a CANCEL from its upstream UAC, the (stateful) proxy
> sends a 200 OK (CANCEL), and also propagates the CANCEL to all outstanding
> branches. Since a proxy cannot respond to an INVITE on its own, it MUST
> wait for the (possibly many) 487 responses and assuming 487 is all it got,
> it should send one of these to the UAC.
>
> CANCEL is hop-by-hop (at least for stateful proxies), not end-to-end.
I knew about the hop-by-hop aspect of CANCEL, but thought
that once a request is CANCEL(led), forwarding non-200 final
response upstream does not make sense.
>
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
> Internet Software and eServices Group
> Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations 263 Shuman Blvd., Rm 1A-413
> Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216 Fax: +1 630 713 0184
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
