Re: draft-ietf-sip-199-02: comments and questions

Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Brett,
> 
> Thanks for you comments! See inline. 
> 
> ------

>> Section 6 paragraph 2 last sentence: Since using another's To tag when
> sending the 199, the draft should mention
>> something concerning headers Contact and Record-Route.  If proxy
> chooses not to add them, a missing Contact and Record-
>> Route will not be an issue for UAC; however another proxy (not
> supporting this draft) may be surprised to see their
>> Record-Route entry missing.
> 
> Two alternative solutions I can think of:
> 
> 1. We mandate a forking proxy which supports 199 to store the C/R-R
> information received from the UAC, in order to insert it in any 199 it
> generates for that session.
> 
> 2. We say that IF the forking proxy stores the C/R-R information
> received from the UAC, it shall insert it in any 199 it generates for
> that session.

In effect the proxy is sending the response in lieu of the final 
response it is not ready to forward. IMO it ought to include whatever 
Contact and R-R is present in that final response. There isn't any need 
to *store* that information, since the final response is at hand when 
the 199 is being generated.

	Thanks,
	Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip