El Friday 26 October 2007 21:20:18 [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > It does not appear to me that there is a requirement that when a proxy > sends a 200 response to a CANCEL that the to-tag of the response match > any other response that has been generated. See RFC 3261 section > 16.10. > > It is true that when a UAS generates a response to a CANCEL it > "SHOULD" use the same to-tag as in the (future) 487 response to the > request being canceled or in the (past) final response to that > request. See RFC 3261 section 9.2.
Thanks, your explanation makes sense. > In fact, I've problem with Asterisk in mode "pedantic=yes" (matching To > and From tags) when sending a CANCEL to an OpenSer that does parallel > forking. Asterisk doesn't recognize the "200 canceling" because the To_tag > is different of the previously received To_tag in 180 response, so Asterisk > remains the channel open. > > Given that the requirement is at SHOULD level, and it appears to apply > only to UASs, not proxies, it appears that Asterisk is behaving > incorrectly. I think Asterisk assumes it talks with UAS and never with proxies. I will investigate it. Thanks a lot for your help. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
