Re: draft-ietf-sip-199-02: comments and questions
Bob Penfield <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC313747B591A@mail> |
>-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:33 AM >To: Christer Holmberg >Cc: [email protected]; Brett Tate >Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-199-02: comments and questions > > > >Christer Holmberg wrote: >> >> 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. The problem with this is that the non-2xx final response will not necessarily have Record-Route or Contact headers since 3261 does not require it. In fact, a strict reading of Table 2 & 3 forbids them in most error responses. If the proxy is going to generate a 199 response, it should include the same Record-Route & Contact as the original early dialog creating 1xx response. cheers, (-:bob _______________________________________________ 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