21 Jun
2010
21 Jun
'10
4:15 a.m.
2010/6/21 Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com>om>:
On 06/21/2010 04:07 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Yes, I agree, but it is normal IMHO as:
- From a dialog's point of view there are just UA's (UAC+UAS).
- From a transaction's point of view there are UAC's, UAS's and
stateful proxies.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
Also note that CANCEL is hop-by-hop (in stateful
mode), this is: a
CANCEL is not relayed/forwarded by a proxy, but consumed/accepted by
the proxy (so it immediately replies 200) and then the proxy must
terminate *its* pending outgoing transactions (which would involve
*generating* CANCEL requests for those transactions which already
replied a 1xx).
Sure, but from a conceptual point of view this sounds like more like a UAS
and less like a proxy, because the proxy is in this case is (a) the logical
target of the CANCEL request from the UAC and (b) provides an encapsulating
layer of abstraction in which the management of one or more branches is
contained.