30 Apr
2010
30 Apr
'10
10:48 a.m.
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/4/30 Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at:
200 OK seems correct as long as the transaction is still in memory.
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.
That's a bug in the RFC and we shall not better projects RFC bugs in implementations :) A well behaving proxy shall keep the context for some period of time.
Then the proxy should reply 481 to the CANCEL rather than a 200.
well, once the transaction is gone, forwarding the CANCEL statelessly would seem a legitimiate behaviour, as long as the proxy is in position to produce branch ID consistently with that for INVITE.
-jiri