Not completely sure that I understand your question. However the main difference in behavior between INVITE and non-INVITE relates to INVITE having an ACK for 3-way handshake.
Since potentially relevant, you also might want to glance at RFC 4320. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz > Castillo > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 12:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Why should be a non-INVITE request > retransmited after receiving a 1XX response? > > El Miércoles, 3 de Febrero de 2010, Pranab Bohra escribió: > > Hi Inaki, > > > > In addition to what Brett mentioned, the 1xx response includes "100 > > Trying" as well. > > 100 is a hop-by-hop response and not end-to-end. So, even if the > > client transaction has entered "Proceeding" state after receiving 100 > > from proxy, it doesn't mean that the UAS has received the request. > > Hence the retransmission. > > Thanks but this explanation doesn't make sense IMHO, let me explain: > > The same you say should then be applied for INVITE transactions as tue > UAC > cannot know if the UAS has received it. However UAC must stop > retransmissions > after receiving a 1XX response from the *proxy*. > > A retransmission just makes sense as hop by hop, so if the UAC has > received a > 1XX response coming from the proxy, why should the UAC retransmit the > request? > > > -- > 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
