Re: [reSIProcate] Multiple non-invite client transactions
On 9/6/05, Keohane, Stephen <Stephen.Keohane@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> Opps – my mistake – apparently the response to the subsequent requests has
> not been received – (what threw me off was my server does what was requested
> of it).
>
>
>
> As to the decision to only support one outstanding NICT seems to stray from
> the RFC – is this correct?
>
Yeah. That was intentional. We didn't want to promote this since we
don't think it is a good idea - but we did want to allow it on the
UAS.
Jason