On 06/10/2011 11:09 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2011/6/10 Brez Borland<[email protected]>: >> Not clear to me though. If proxy has received a CANCEL from Alice it should >> terminate the transaction. > This is incorrect. The proxy does not terminate an INVITE server > transaction when it receives a CANCEL. It just cancels pending > branches and UAS's are supposed to termiinate the transactions (487) > or maybe local timeout occurs (not responding branch so local 408 is > generated).
Which begs the question why then do we accept CANCEL UAC rules to apply to proxy transactions and not UAS rules? Shouldn't they always be a pair to ensure end-to-end transaction states are synchronized? _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
