see message:
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2001-May/001048.htmlThanks,
Shan Lu
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
-----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
_______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
