[Devel] Re: TM failure route bug

[Juha Heinanen]

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:

 > To be honest I like your idea bout dealing with these cases - but there 
 > is a drawback: you cannot make distinction between CANCELs which does 
 > not match because it;s broken or because the CANCEL haven't arrived
 > yet.

should it matter?  if cancel is broken, the corresponding transaction
will timeout anyhow.

 > I was thinking to another approach (suggested by Klaus) - when creating 
 > the INVITE transaction, see if there is an already created CANCEL 
 > transaction for it (this search is easy since both are on the same 
 > hash). If so, stop the INVITE and reply with 487.
 > By doing so, you can distinguish between broken cancels and cancels 
 > without invite.

that would be ok too as long you don't forward the cancel anywhere.

-- juha