On 11/3/14 7:59 PM, ankur bansal wrote:
Thanks Paul for the answer But still not clear why ACK needs to be new transaction .Anyway TU only sending ACK so multiple ACKs can be sent if multiple 200 come. Do we have any better explanation for this .Also i was thinking if they changed the 200 transaction handling from transaction terminate to transaction accepted then at same time they would have made ACK handling also same for any final response . But its kept same for some reason which i am trying to understand.
While I have been involved with SIP for a long time, this decision is older than that (more than 12 years ago), so I wasn't involved in it. I gave you my best understanding of why. At this point there is little point is speculating why, because it it too firmly engrained to be changed.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu <mailto:pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu>> wrote: On 10/31/14 12:27 PM, ankur bansal wrote: Hi All Why ACK is made separate transaction when 2xx is final response.Reasons being given that TL is deleted on getting 2xx to be independant of upperlayer whether its UA core or proxy core.but now after rfc 6026 came TL not deleted on getting 2xx.then whats the reason to keep ACK still new transaction The simple answer is that when an INVITE is forked, it is possible to get more than one successful response. Each of those needs to be ACKed to the proper place. When the INVITE fails it is considered failed for all forks, and so you only need one ACK. Thanks, Paul _________________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list sip-implement...@lists.cs.__columbia.edu <mailto:Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/__mailman/listinfo/sip-__implementors <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors>
_______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
