________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mia Cizmic [[email protected]]
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. [...] 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? _______________________________________________ I think that 3261 specifies (or implies) that Timer C controls this situation, as would happen with an initial INVITE. Timer C's usual duration is 3 minutes. Under the 3261 assumption that re-INVITEs require approval of the UAS's such a long timer makes sense. But in the real case that re-INVITEs are processed automatically, such a long timer doesn't make a lot of sense. OTOH, the timer only comes into play when communication has failed between the UAs, so the timeout duration is not of much practical importance. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
