hahaa.. yep, that's what Shiv's mail says! maybe he couldn't put it down right. am sure, he translated the line from his native language and then typed it out in english. no offence Shiv :-)
As Inaki has said, either you have to clarify your scenario.. or if you are correct in what you were saying then get the timer fixed!! - Ben. --- On Tue, 10/14/08, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] re-transmission timer for UAC transaction > (INVITE) failed. > To: > Cc: "SIPImplementors Mailing list" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 1:16 PM > 2008/10/14 Benjamin Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I think what Shiv is trying to depict is : > > 1. UAC has sent out on INVITE > > 2. UAC doesn't get a response in it's time > > 3. Timer B (as per INVITE transaction) expires and it > goes onto the Terminated state. > > 4. Now you get the responses (provisional/ final) from > the other side. > > No no, read the previous mail from Shiv, it says that Timer > B doesn't > expire, but "fails": > "It means the retransmission timer of 500ms is not > started > because it got failed but the INVITE is already > dispatched." > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
