El Wednesday 13 August 2008 16:36:30 Somesh S. Shanbhag escribió: > I think both are fine because both would tear-down the transaction and > would mean almost the same thing. > > But still 408 would have been more appropriate as its from Gateway, rather > than 480 which is more likely to be client driven. > > And also in 480, we can get Re-Try after header, the time after which I can > attempt calling again! > > Its more implementation dependent.
Yes, but after looking for 408 in RFC3261 it seems that 408 is more used to indicate failed ongoin transactions (if a proxy forwards a request and doesn't receive final response it must reply a 408). So I'm confused about it. Thanks. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
