Re: [Sip] RFC 3261 - 16.10 (CANCEL processing in a Proxy)

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 19 April 2011 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: sip@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12D3E075F for <sip@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.272, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kuADi4P1aV65 for <sip@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE728E078A for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so4016518qwc.31 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.201.133 with SMTP id fa5mr3701240qab.126.1303228086137; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.75.7 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DADAE0F.7090404@bell-labs.com>
References: <BANLkTi=mob149EFPTffkCUa+j-2dd=9k7A@mail.gmail.com> <4DADA292.6060906@bell-labs.com> <BANLkTindAUS=ArC0C12Xd8UzYUrFEJpoGw@mail.gmail.com> <4DADAE0F.7090404@bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:48:06 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=9tQMaWEmSFc6e096mhZ4MaP1H4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] RFC 3261 - 16.10 (CANCEL processing in a Proxy)
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:48:22 -0000

2011/4/19 Vijay K. Gurbani <vkg@bell-labs.com>:
> However, I don't think that rfc6026 says much about whether or not
> to generate a 481 to a CANCEL if the CANCEL does not match a pending
> transaction.

Right, it says nothing about CANCEL.



>  So go crazy and generate it at a stateful proxy;
> from the viewpoint of the UAC, it did receive a final response
> for the CANCEL.  It may well never receive a final response
> for the INVITE if the proxy
>  implements rfc6026
>    AND the proxy crashed after sending the INVITE
>      AND the proxy did not store transaction state in persistent store
>        AND the proxy was promptly brought up and was presented with a
>        200 OK (INVITE) that did not match pending transactions

AND since the UAC would never receive the 200 it would not send the
ACK, so the UAS would terminate the dialog (sending a BYE) after ~32
seconds, which is "acceptable" (in the context of a crashing proxy).
:)


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>