On 06/11/2011 12:48 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 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.
>
I agree with this. Yes I followed this thread closely from the start.
The question was a "why" (not where it is stated in the RFC) for the
sake of those, including myself, understand how a very basic scenario
such as call cancellation gets this very lengthy discussions up to now.
Clearly, misinterpretation due to vagueness is the cause.
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
