[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: AW: [Partysip-dev] 481 after 183, CANCEL

From: Walter Schober
Subject: RE: AW: [Partysip-dev] 481 after 183, CANCEL
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:59:43 +0200

I agree. 

FYI: see RFC3261, 16.6, Section 8, espacially the last paragraph.
         The request method MUST NOT be included in the calculation of
         the branch parameter.  In particular, CANCEL and ACK requests
         (for non-2xx responses) MUST have the same branch value as the
         corresponding request they cancel or acknowledge.  The branch
         parameter is used in correlating those requests at the server
         handling them (see Sections 17.2.3 and 9.2).

Thanks for your help!


P.S.: It more and more comes to read the "bible" :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Aymeric Moizard [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 4:46 PM
To: Walter Schober
Subject: Re: AW: [Partysip-dev] 481 after 183, CANCEL

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Walter Schober wrote:

> Hello Aymeric!
> The INVITE and CANCEL are matched on the branch= tag in the Via 
> headers in pspm_sfp_cancel_match_invite(). But the branches differ.
> Since branches are a hash of Request-URI, To, From, Call-ID and the 
> Request-URI is different per se, the question now is: Is the branch 
> calculation wrong or is branch the wrong method of matching call legs?
> I will ask that the other proxy vendor as well (comercial proxy) :-)

I think they are wrong. branch in the cancel should be the one sent in
the INVITE. This is the compliant way for rfc3261.txt


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]