Hello, many thanks for the explanations!
o Adam Roach on 11/24/2011 06:25 AM: > > On 11/23/11 23:08, Nov 23, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> Lets ask Adam to comment on this. >> >> Adam? > > Yeah, I saw this on the resip list but didn't have time to dig into > it. My recollection is that you're not supposed to send a NOTIFY on a > dialog while another NOTIFY is still pending on the same dialog. I > distinctly recall having discussions around this point in the > 1999-2000 timeframe, and I think we elected not to prohibit it > (although I don't remember why). It's water under the bridge at this > point. > > > ... >>> so I don't understand how in RFC 5057, section 5.1, 500 (or unknown >>> 5xx) >>> show up in "Transaction Only" and not in "Destroys Usage" - what am I >>> missing? > > RFC 5057 reflects more recent operational experience than RFC 3265. > Even though it is only informational, I would take its notion of what > destroys a dialog versus just failing a transaction to be more > informed than RFC 3265's. In fact, in the revision to RFC 3265 > currently underway, we specifically use the RFC 5057 rules for > destruction of dialogs, usages, and transactions. that's very good to hear, looking forward to that. Stefan > > So, in this case, I believe that the B2BUA stack has it wrong, and > shouldn't be terminating the dialog. This will be much clearer when > the next version of SIP Events is published. > > /a > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
