2011/4/19 Brez Borland <[email protected]>: > IMHO. The mandatory requirement imposed sounds a bit insane really. I would > say policy like this should be left for operations/deployment decisions. I > can't see this to work, for example, in IMS world. > > It is confusing really. If there's a document correcting this ruling, I > would love to see somebody to bring it to our attention here.
Thanks to both. Then I will make my proxy to reply 481 for a CANCEL not matching an existing transaction, and will also report this subject in ietf-sip maillist. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
