2010/7/2 Harbhanu <[email protected]>: >>> However note that in draft-invfix (sipcore) theserver transaction is >>> not terminated when sending a 200, instead a new state "Accepted" is >>> entered. > > Please correct me if I am wrong but as per my understanding of draft-invfix, > the change in server transaction's lifetime (state machine) has nothing to > do with basic 2xx handling (i.e. generation + retransmission).
Yes right, not sure why I told it. >>> However, such retransmission should not delay or alter any timer >>> belonging to the dialog status (as Session Timers). > Please share the rationale behind this statement? Retransmission is just a reliability mechanism to ensure requests or responses. IMHO something like Session Timers is in a layer on top of the transport and retransmissions layer. Usually retransmission requests or responses are identical (byte by byte) to the original request/response. In your case you are suggesting that the retransmission of a 200 response should be different than the original 200 as the UA updates the Session-Timer expriation time in the corresponding header, am I right? If so, this seems a bit exotic for me (as it doesn't occur in all the other cases in which a retransmission happens), so that is my argument. > Also, does retran-2xx not able to serve the purpose for which session timer > is originally introduced? I don't think so for the reason explained above (I could be wrong, of course). -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
