Hi Mia you can go through thread with title "How long can a Dialog be in Early state". dated 10th July 2010.
Even though it's for initial request but help you understand timer in a better way. also read below bug and RFC 5057 (how final responses to transaction affect dialog). http://bugs.sipit.net/show_bug.cgi?id=706 Regards, Sumit Jindal On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:25 PM, $...@r\/|>r!`/@ <sarvpriyagu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > This problem occurs not only in ReInvite but in INVITE transactions also. > Its a bug in SIP and has been reported as well. In our implementation, we > didnt hamper the existing timers but created a new one whose value we set > > timerB. > For sure the dialog needs to be terminated. > > cheers!! > sarvpriya > (http://sarvpriyak.blogspot.com) > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Mia Cizmic <mia.ciz...@ericsson.com>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> in our SIP implementation, we have encountered a problem for which we >> don't find a clear statement in RFC 3261. >> We would like to hear your opinion about this issue, if possible. >> >> Namely, we have sent a Re-Invite on an existing session and received 100 >> Trying reply. >> 100 Trying reply turned off Timer B. After 100 Trying, we haven't got >> any answer on Re-Invite. >> >> Chapter 14.1 of RFC 3261 says: >> "If a UA receives a non-2xx final response to a re-INVITE, the session >> parameters MUST remain unchanged, as if no re-INVITE had been issued. >> Note that, as stated in Section 12.2.1.2, if the non-2xx final response >> is a 481 (Call/Transaction Does Not Exist), or a 408 (Request Timeout), >> or no response at all is received for the re-INVITE (that is, a timeout >> is returned by the INVITE client transaction), the UAC will terminate >> the dialog." >> >> Quoted paragraph does not say anything for provisional responses. >> >> I find our implementation aligned with the RFC (quoted paragraph and >> Figure 5) but it is also evident that we can not keep waiting for the >> final response forever. >> >> My question is which timer should control the duration of INVITE >> transaction? Can Timer B me expanded and NOT switched off if provisional >> response is received (Figure 5) or it would be better to implement a new >> timer. If you think that a new timer is a better solution, can you >> suggest it's guiding value? >> >> Thank you in advance, >> Mia >> _______________________________________________ >> Sip-implementors mailing list >> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >> > > > > -- > cheers!!!! > sarvpriya > http://sarvpriyak.blogspot.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > -- Regards, Sumit Jindal _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
