[reSIProcate] Re: Multiple non-invite client transactions
On Sep 6, 2005, at 7:01 PM, Jason Fischl wrote:
> On 9/6/05, Keohane, Stephen <
Stephen.Keohane@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
Is it allowed on the UAS side? AFAICT there's only
one mLastNitResponse buffer. If a second NIT arrives before a response
is sent, how does the server respond to the original one?
Forgive my deep ignorance, but why is multiple oustanding NITs a bad idea?
- Alan