I too have noticed the somewhat strange mentioning of a "server timeout" and at first thought it is referring to Timer L from RFC 6026 and the prior drafts - however, this can not be since the INVITE transaction fix was formulated after RFC 3261. Did the IETF folks invent a time machine and only used it to send a SIP bugfix into the past? :-D
Best regards, Peter On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Pekka Pessi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 12:50 +0200, ext Peter Krebs wrote: > > While perusing the race condition examples in RFC 5407 I noticed what > seems > > to be an inconsistency in regard to RFC 3261. The example in sec. 3.2.4 > > depicts the callee (Bob) sending a BYE request immediately after the 200, > > however RFC 3261, sec. 15 clearly states that > > > > "...the callee’s UA MUST NOT send a BYE on a confirmed dialog until it > has > > received an ACK for its 2xx response or until the server transaction > times > > out." > > Problem is, server transaction never times out, but gets immediately > terminated on returning a 2xx. Perhaps the intention is clear, but I do > not understand the purpose it is supposed to serve. RFC2543-style > clients? > > --Pekka > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
