> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Ramachandran Iyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 1:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] UAC state machine fork?
>
>
>
> The states that UAC going to maintain are transcation-specific.
> So is it goin to have one FSM which will fork off to create different
> instances of the FSM (to receive the responses from other UASs which
> may have beenreached due toa forking proxy downstream) depending upon
> what responses it gets?
>
> To address the problem of how-many-times to fork, there can
> always be
> an instance of the FSM that can listen and wait for a
> possible response
> from a UAS/proxy downstream ... If none exists, then it can time out.
>
> Am I getting this right or is it totally absurd??
To be clear, you are talking about handling of multiple 200 OK responses to
a single INVITE? Each creates a new call leg at the UAC, which can be
independently BYE'd, re-INVITEd, or whatever. To implement this, you might
choose to clone, or "fork" some call leg state on the receipt of a 200 OK to
create a call leg for it. So, what you are describing is a reasonable thing.
-Jonathan R.
---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist First Floor
dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
