[reSIProcate] How to handle retransmission of 200 OK for an INVITE ?

[Asheesh Joshi]

Hi Scott,

	Thanks for the quick response. If it s ok with you, can you please tell me what fix does this SVN address ? I mean, is that after using this new fix, one will not get a callback for a retransmit of 200 OK if the previous one has been handled? Or is there a different callback? 

-best regards
Asheesh.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin at icescape.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 7:56 AM
To: 'Asheesh Joshi'; 'resiprocate-devel'
Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] How to handle retransmission of 200 OK for an INVITE ?

200 transmissions for Invites only are supposed to be passed to the UAC layer and are not handled by the stack.  There is stuff in 3261 about this.

Eitherway - I just submitted a bug fix for this problem earlier this week.  Can you please try using the latest SVN head?

Thanks,

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Asheesh Joshi
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:34 PM
To: resiprocate-devel
Subject: [reSIProcate] How to handle retransmission of 200 OK for an INVITE ?

Hi,

        I am facing a problem in resip. The DUM gives me a callback even for a retransmission of 200 OK for an INVITE.
Is it that I have to take care of checking the Cseq in my application and ignore it ?  Shouldn't the Transaction layer itself Reject such a retransmitted 200 OK and not give a callback ?

        Actually I don't see this thing mentioned in the RFC 3261 either!   Is
this a bug in RFC ?

- Regards
Asheesh

-----Original Message-----
From: resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org]On Behalf Of maodonghu
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:54 AM
To: resiprocate-devel
Subject: [reSIProcate] (no subject)

Hi,

I am a fresh man on reSIProcate, now I encounter a problem in my program.
if the program written like this, it is good for work:

//---------------------------------------------------
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
        //Log::initialize(Log::Cout, Log::Stack, argv[0]);

        SipStack sip_stack;
        DialogUsageManager* dum = new DialogUsageManager( sip_stack );
        dum->addTransport( UDP, 12345 );


but if written like this, it will throw a exception:

//----------------------------------------------------
SipStack sip_stack;
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
        //Log::initialize(Log::Cout, Log::Stack, argv[0]);


        DialogUsageManager* dum = new DialogUsageManager( sip_stack );
        dum->addTransport( UDP, 12345 );
        ...

I dont know why the sip_stack must be local ?

　　　　　　　　maodonghu
　　　　　　　　hhmmdd at tom.com
　　　　　　　　　　2005-11-03

_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel