[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sip
Subject:    Re: [SIP] Caller receives responses
From:       Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen () dynamicsoft ! com>
Date:       2000-06-23 19:30:45
[Download RAW message or body]



Sean Olson wrote:
> 
> >
> > If you fork REGISTERs (I'm not sure why you'd do this -- perhaps
> > towards some sort of redundancy?), are there any potential
> > problems with only returning one 200?  The only other request
> > I can possibly see problems with (because you might get a response
> > from a UA that ultimately you wouldn't have been interested in)
> > is OPTIONS.  (Of course, unknown methods are forwarded like
> > OPTIONS.)
> 
> I can think of a couple of good applications for forking REGISTER and other
> non-INVITE requests where you definitely DO care about receiving
> ALL of the 200 class responses. If a UA already has to deal with
> multiple 2xx response for an INVITE, is it really so different
> to do this for non-INVITE requests as well?

Yes, because it is impossible.

Multiple 200 OK for INVITE only works because you can ACK each one
individually. With non-INVITE, the only way to retrigger a response
retransmission is a request retransmission. But, request retransmissions
are not for a specific response; thus, it would be impossible to
reliably transmit multiple 200 OK to non-INVITE.

I do not believe there is really a need for multiple 200 OK for
non-INVITE, in any case.

-Jonathan R.


-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244
http://www.dynamicsoft.com


_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
SIP@lists.bell-labs.com
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]