Hi,
RFC 3261 says, in section 9:
"Note that both the transaction corresponding to the original request
and the CANCEL transaction will complete independently. However, a
UAC canceling a request cannot rely on receiving a 487 (Request
Terminated) response for the original request, as an RFC 2543-
compliant UAS will not generate such a response. If there is no
final response for the original request in 64*T1 seconds (T1 is
defined in Section 17.1.1.1), the client SHOULD then consider the
original transaction cancelled and SHOULD destroy the client
transaction handling the original request."
Doesnt it implies that transaction layer must cancel the transaction
after this timeout (which can be timer B). If the implication is that UA
must start this timer (called by some other name) then Timer B and this
timer are duplicated (unnecessary overhead ).I am not sure on this. Wont the proxy reply with trying and wait for an OK from the remote host and then send an OK. Please clarify on this issue.Secondly, the scenario of CANCEL not getting a 200 response because of the server crash cannot happen, as CANCEL is hop-by-hop and a 200 OK is sent from the next proxy in line.
I agree to this. But this timer must be started at transaction layer when initial INVITE request is send (that is the reason i m calling it timer B) and a mention in the state diagram over the path from *proceeding* state to *terminated* state on the expiry of this timer.In general, the timer mentioned above could be started irrespective of *any* response to the CANCEL, including a time-out.
-Kannan
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip