30 Apr
2010
30 Apr
'10
12:49 p.m.
Am 30.04.2010 11:37, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2010/4/30 Klaus
Darilion<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
If the transaction
for the original request still exists, the behavior of the UAS on
receiving a CANCEL request depends on whether it has already sent a
final response for the original request.
This means that the transaction may still exists although the 200 OK was
already sent (to absorb retransmissions)
Regardless of the method of the original request, as long as the
CANCEL matched an existing transaction, the UAS answers the CANCEL
request itself with a 200 (OK) response.
So 200 OK is fine. If it makes sense is a different point.
regards
klaus
200 OK seems correct as long as the transaction
is still in memory.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-9.2
I don't agree. As per RFC 3261 when a proxy receives a 200 for an
INVITE the transaction is terminated so a CANCEL after the 200 should
not match such transaction. Then the proxy should reply 481 to the
CANCEL rather than a 200.