2011/6/11 Joegen E. Baclor <[email protected]>: > 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?
In case of CANCEL, if the proxy forwarded the INVITE, then the transaction must be terminated by the UAS (by sending the corresponding 487). The exception is the case in which the UAS does reply nothing to the INVITE so the proxy, at the end, generates a local 408 for the UAC. Please check the firsts mails in this thread as they clearly state the same. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
