Re: [reSIProcate] crossing byes in dum
On Thursday 28 October 2004 09:19 am, Jon Ringle wrote:
> On Thursday 28 October 2004 02:29 am, Jason Fischl wrote:
> > I'm just writing some test cases where two dum user agents hang up
> > simultaneously. The current behavior is:
> >
> > A INVITEs B
> > A and B both send BYE at same time
> > A rejects BYE with 481
> > B rejects BYE with 481
> >
> > Is this valid behavior or should one of the user agents send a 200? It
> > seems to me that it is probably ok as it is.
>
> Looks like correct behaviour to me. Both UAs have already sent BYEs and
> should have disposed of the session on thier end. When the BYE is received,
> the session refered to in the call-id doesn't exist, hence the 481
> response.
Incidently, I believe that this is one scenario that motivates the text in
rfc3261, section 15.1.1 regarding 481 response to a BYE:
Once the BYE is constructed, the UAC core creates a new non-INVITE
client transaction, and passes it the BYE request. The UAC MUST
consider the session terminated (and therefore stop sending or
listening for media) as soon as the BYE request is passed to the
client transaction. If the response for the BYE is a 481
(Call/Transaction Does Not Exist) or a 408 (Request Timeout) or no
response at all is received for the BYE (that is, a timeout is
returned by the client transaction), the UAC MUST consider the
session and the dialog terminated.
>
> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel