Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 17:07:55, manjunathwarad wrote about "RE:
[Sip-implementors] Regarding non-INVITE server transaction":
[I excluded [EMAIL PROTECTED] from recipients]
> Below mentioned behaviour is for client transaction, not for
> server transaction.
But how do you imagine receiving _response_ for _server_
transaction? From internals from upper layers (e.g. UA)? This of
course can take place, but this isn't protocol-level question. As
soon as original poster said for receiving a _response_ it anyway
is client transaction, so I supposed replying with 8.1.3.1 is
enough.
Do you have any other understanding for word "response" in such
context?
>> If the non-IST doesn't receive any RESPONSE message then what will
>> happen?
>> RFC 3261 (in Figure 8: non-INVITE server transaction ) doesn't mention
>> properly
>> what will happen if the non-IST doesn't receive any provisional
>> response/final response.
> ==={{{
> 8.1.3.1 Transaction Layer Errors
> In some cases, the response returned by the transaction layer will
> not be a SIP message, but rather a transaction layer error. When a
> timeout error is received from the transaction layer, it MUST be
> treated as if a 408 (Request Timeout) status code has been received.
> If a fatal transport error is reported by the transport layer
> (generally, due to fatal ICMP errors in UDP or connection failures in
> TCP), the condition MUST be treated as a 503 (Service Unavailable)
> status code.
> ===}}}
--
Valentin Nechayev
PortaOne Inc., Software Engineer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
