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. 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
