>>Once a transaction has been destroyed, shouldn't the UAS respond to >>the ACK with a 481? Or should it just silently absorb the ACK?
Never send a response to an ACK request. The ACK request is a special request that has no response. ACK should always be silently absorbed. Regards, Attila -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Corbe Sent: 19 December 2007 18:39 To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: [Sip-implementors] ACKing 200 OKs I'm having a bit of a hard time interpreting parts of the RFC relevant to sending an ACK in response to a 200 OK. Language like: Once the transaction is in the "Terminated" state, it MUST be destroyed immediately. As with client transactions, this is needed to ensure reliability of the 2xx responses to INVITE. and If, while in the "Proceeding" state, the TU passes a 2xx response to the server transaction, the server transaction MUST pass this response to the transport layer for transmission. It is not retransmitted by the server transaction; retransmissions of 2xx responses are handled by the TU. The server transaction MUST then transition to the "Terminated" state. Make me believe it's not possible for a UAC to send an ACK to a UAS in response to a 200 OK Once a transaction has been destroyed, shouldn't the UAS respond to the ACK with a 481? Or should it just silently absorb the ACK? -Daniel _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
