16 aug 2012 kl. 16:43 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo: > Thanks to both. It's clear. I had some doubts since RFC 3265 > (obsoleted by 6665) allows multiple subscription dialog creation if a > proxy forks a SUBSCRIBE. But those dialogs are created in the UAC upon > receipt of each NOTIFY with different From-tag (rather than creating > the dialog upon the receipt of the *single* 200 OK for the initial > SUBSCRIBE). > > Thanks. > > > 2012/8/16 Brett Tate <[email protected]>: >>> Hi, if a UAC sends a SUBSCRIBE and the proxy does parallel forking to >>> two servers, it could occur that both servers reply a 200. >>> >>> Should the proxy relay the second 200 to the UAC? or should it absorb >>> it? >> >> It should be consumed instead of relayed by the proxy. >> >> RFC 3261: >> >> "This step, combined with the next, ensures that a stateful >> proxy will forward exactly one final response to a non-INVITE >> request, and either exactly one non-2xx response or one or more >> 2xx responses to an INVITE request." >> >> RFC 6026: >> >> "When receiving any SIP response, a transaction-stateful proxy MUST >> compare the transaction identifier in that response against its >> existing transaction state machines. The proxy MUST NOT forward the >> response if there is no matching transaction state machine." >
This is actually a good test scenario. I guess the UAC wants to send a Subscribe with Expiry:0 on the second dialog to terminate it. /O _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
