[SR-Users] Wrong handling CANCEL message

[Jiri Kuthan]

Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2010/4/30 Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>:
>> 200 OK seems correct as long as the transaction is still in memory.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-9.2
> 
> I don't agree. As per RFC 3261 when a proxy receives a 200 for an
> INVITE the transaction is terminated so a CANCEL after the 200 should
> not match such transaction.

That's a bug in the RFC and we shall not better projects RFC bugs in
implementations :) A well behaving proxy shall keep the context for
some period of time.

>  Then the proxy should reply 481 to the
> CANCEL rather than a 200.

well, once the transaction is gone, forwarding the CANCEL statelessly
would seem a legitimiate behaviour, as long as the proxy is in position
to produce branch ID consistently with that for INVITE.

-jiri

> 
>