[SR-Users] TM clarifications Re: CANCEL before INVITE + loose_route()

[Iñaki Baz Castillo]

2010/6/21 Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com>:
> On 06/21/2010 04:07 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>
>> 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.

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 at aliax.net>