Response Inline... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christophe Lebel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 2:40 PM Subject: [Sip-implementors] About Timer C
> I need some highlights about the Timer C defined in RFC3261 (created > at 16.6.11, updated at 16.7.2, processs at 16.8). > Does the timer C substitute completely to the TimerB ? No. Timer C does not substitute Timer B. When a transaction receives a provisional response(even 100), timer B is cancelled by the transaction layer. The proxy core, assuming that a provisional response has been received, will wait for Timer C duration before sending CANCEL to the respective branch when no final response is received from that branch. > I mean what happens when the timer B of a client transaction expires > (i.e no provisional response has been received) : > - does the client transaction expire (i.e its state is set to TERMINATED) ? Yes, the client transaction expires and its state is set to TERMINATED. The firing of Timer B will mean that no provisional response (even a 100 TRYING) is received from this branch. When Timer B expires, a proxy must treat this as a 408 REQUEST TIMEOUT final response from this branch. Hence Timer C is also cancelled at this point. > a) if yes, must the Timer C remain active in such case? if yes, does > it mean any further provisional response will be handle statelessly ? > b) if not, does it mean the stateful proxy SHOULD extend the life of > the client transaction and SHOULD then override the Timer B role? > > Any helps welcome, > > Christophe Lebel. Hope this helps... Regards, Sridhar Mistral Software > _______________________________________________ > 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
