Comments inline... Thanks & Regards, Nataraju A.B. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sip-implementors- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Vinod > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 6:07 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Sip-implementors] What is the logic? > > Hi, > > The following is a quote from section 14.1 of RFC 3261: > > <Begin quote> > > If a UAC receives a 491 response to a re-INVITE, it SHOULD start a > timer with a value T chosen as follows: > 1. If the UAC is the owner of the Call-ID of the dialog ID > (meaning it generated the value), T has a randomly chosen value > between 2.1 and 4 seconds in units of 10 ms. > 2. If the UAC is not the owner of the Call-ID of the dialog ID, T > has a randomly chosen value of between 0 and 2 seconds in units > of 10 ms. > > <End Quote> > > Does anyone know the design logic behind the difference in the timer values? > [ABN] AFAIK, the importance point here is with respect to having different waiting timers on UAC and UAS. And 0-2 or 2.1-4 seconds duration is been considered arbitrary.
Note: if all the UAC/UAS agrees, we can very well interchange these durations, I mean UAC to use timers in the range of 0-2 seconds, UAS to use timers in the range of 2.1-4 seconds. Doing so does not add much value compared to what is been said in 3261. If both UAC and UAS have same waiting timer values, then there might be a chance that each of them retries at same time again and again, which is what undesirable. > thanks for your time. > > PV > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
