[SR-Users] Wrong handling CANCEL message

[Klaus Darilion]

200 OK seems correct as long as the transaction is still in memory.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-9.2

regards
klaus

Am 30.04.2010 10:22, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
> 2010/4/29 pars3c<pars3c at gmail.com>:
>> Hi, i have a problem about the handling of the “cancel” message.
>
>> The B side answer with OK, after a while , a send a CANCEL. I don’t know why
>> Kamailio don’t forward this message to the B side.
>
> Because Kamailio already received a 200 for the INVITE transaction so
> it's terminated, there is nothing to cancel hen the CANCEL arrives.
>
>
>> B retry to send the OK message, then A send the ACK.
>>
>> At the end , B send BYE , but A don’t have the transactin.
>
> This is because Kamailio replied 200 to the CANCEL so A still believes
> it has cancelled and has terminated it locally.
>
> Perhaps Kamailio should reply 404 to the CANCEL as a 200 was already
> received for the INVITE (could it be a bug?).
>
>   However your UAC is doing strange things:
> - Why does A send a CANCEL after receiving a 200 OK for the INVITE?
> - Also if A sends an ACK for the 200 (INVITE) it *does* know that the
> transaction is still alive so shouldn't reply 481.
>
> The behavior of UAC A is not very common and seems buggy IMHO.
>