Even the proxy drops the response without a matching transaction, the timeout event is still the only way to terminate the pending things.
Alex Zhang ESN: 6-554-8782 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Tate Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 1xx response for a non-existing transaction? > > Yes, with the modification that the server drops the 180 and do not > > send it to user A, but the result is the same - User B has to wait > > for the timers to timeout to give up the transaction. > > You didn't confirm that the server is a proxy. > (Alternatively it might be a B2BUA.) > > If it is a proxy, then I am pretty sure it is supposed to forward the > 180 statelessly rather than drop it. As you say, it doesn't affect the > outcome, but still it is wrong. Draft-sparks-sip-invfix is currently undergoing WGLC. It fixes/changes/clarifies rfc3261 concerning late/extra responses and requests. It is currently proposing to change rfc3261 concerning proxying of unknown responses. The current proposal is to "fix" rfc3261 so that the stateful proxy MUST NOT proxy responses for unknown transactions. _______________________________________________ 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
