>> the UA updates the Session-Timer expriation time in the corresponding header, am I right?
Nope, we are sure to receive the *same 2xx*. IMO session timer is required since inactivity in the signaling plane can't explicitly/implicitly imply whether session is alive or not. But here it's not the case, since there is anyways some activity on signaling side and thus we can safely *infer* that session is alive end-to-end. **************************************************************************** *********** This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! -----Original Message----- From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 3:54 PM To: Harbhanu Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Retrans 2xx handilng - RFC-4028 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
