Re: New version (-04) of draft-ietf-sip-199

> > "If the forking proxy has stored the Contact 
> > and Record-Route headers for the early dialogs, 
> > it SHALL insert the headers in the 199 responses."

<snip>

> > Also, if there is no compulsion to store these 
> > header fields, why make it mandatory to transmit 
> > them if they have been stored?
> 
> I was requested to add text about the possibility 
> to store the header fields and included them in 
> the response. I see no harm in doing so, since 
> storing the parameters is optional anyway.

For clarity, the following is a snippet from my 11/17/2008
draft-ietf-sip-199-02 comments and questions posting to the sip list.  I
don't have strong preference concerning the normative strength to
include (or not include) the headers.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg25605.html

"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.  Additionally since this draft defines a 1xx
with To tag which does not create a dialog (unless section 4 paragraph 4
modified), does this draft update RFC 3261?"

_______________________________________________
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