El Lunes, 17 de Marzo de 2008, Steve Langstaff escribió: > I was reading this from RFC 3263: > > Failure also occurs if the transaction layer times out without ever > having received any response, provisional or final (i.e., timer B or > timer F in RFC 3261 [1] fires). If a failure occurs, the client > SHOULD create a new request, which is identical to the previous, but > has a different value of the Via branch ID than the previous (and > therefore constitutes a new SIP transaction). That request is sent > to the next element in the list as specified by RFC 2782. > > Which says, to me, that transaction layer timeouts fire off a new > request and... > > This from RFC 3261: > > 8.1.3.1 Transaction Layer Errors > > In some cases, the response returned by the transaction layer will > not be a SIP message, but rather a transaction layer error.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I understand that this "response returned by the transaction layer" means the final response after trying all the IP's get via DNS. > When a > timeout error is received from the transaction layer, it MUST be > treated as if a 408 (Request Timeout) status code has been received. So, if an IP got via RFC3263 returned a SIP 408 (not socket/ICMP error) the that is the definitive reply and for the client is means "can't connect with destination". And if no one of all the IP's (RFC3263) returned a real SIP reply, then the final response if a timeout, and the client behaviour should be the same as if a final 408 reply was received. > Which says, to me, that a 408 response and a transaction layer timeout > must be treated the same. > > Maybe I made 2+2=5? In fact, I'm not sure at all of what I'm talking about XD -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
