Re: [reSIProcate-users] Not sending a Response to an Incoming Request!

[Mandeep Ahuja <ahuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Scott
as always !!


Scott Godin wrote:
> If you want to abandon a server transaction without response you 
> should use the following method of SipStack:
>
>       /**
>          Tells the stack that the TU has abandoned a server 
> transaction. This
>          is provided to allow better behavior in cases where an 
> exception is 
>          thrown due to garbage in the request, and the code catching the 
>          exception has no way of telling whether the original request 
> is still
>          around. This frees the TU of the obligation to respond to the 
> request.
>          @param tid The transaction identifier for the server transaction.
>          @note This function is distinct from 
> cancelClientInviteTransaction().
>       */
>       void abandonServerTransaction(const Data& tid);
>
> Scott
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Mandeep Ahuja 
> <ahuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ahuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>     Due to security reasons sometimes it makes sense to not to reply
>     to an incoming SIP request.
>
>     When the application gets a Request message from the resip layer,
>     it decides to drop it (security) instead of sending it to dum.
>      Would resiprocate leak memory here?
>
>     If it is application's job to free the memory can someone point me
>     to the right direction?
>
>     thanks & Regards
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     resiprocate-users mailing list
>     resiprocate-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:resiprocate-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     List Archive: http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-users/