Subject: RE: [Sip] Major Open Issue #113: Overlapping Transactions

From: "Chiou, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:58:17 -0600

Hi,

Are you saying the overlapping transaction is purely end-to-end issue?
And the Proxy Server does not need to act on it. It is very difficult
for the Stateful Proxy server, which acts as a virtual UAS/USC at the
same time. I did implement a Stateful SIP Proxy Server for softswitch,
which had the same behavior when receiveing a final response. In this
overlapping transaction scenario, the Core network has to do a special
handling for 490 other than the rest of 4xx.

It does not sound right to me, especially for interworking scenarios.

Regards,

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 11:37 AM
To: Chiou, Mark
Cc: Bob Penfield; Jonathan Rosenberg; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Major Open Issue #113: Overlapping Transactions

Hi,

"Chiou, Mark" wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Why don't we pick 190 for Request Updated response instead of 490.

Because we want to keep the core of the network transaction aware. The
core does not need to be aware of the new 490 code in order to function
correctly. If the code was 190, the core would need to be updated.

Regards,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:08:00 +0200

Hi,

> It does not sound right to me, especially for interworking scenarios.

In interworking scenarios your gateway (or softswitch) is not a proxy,
it is a UA.

Regards,

Gonzalo