On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 11:00 -0400, Kathleen Eccles wrote: > I changed the code to pass this test by removing hard limits (180s) in > the INVITE transaction path. I did not extend the timing for all > transactions. It seems to me that we would not want other transactions > to have unlimited time outs.
The theory is that all non-INVITE requests get a response in less than a second. That's why you're not supposed to send 100's for non-INVITE requests. This doesn't work in practice, as retrying failed communication links can delay the delivery of any request. (Which is why sipX sends 100's for any repeated non-INVITE request.) But I would be extremely surprised if there is any legitimate situation where a non-INVITE request took more than 180 seconds. Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
