Arunachalam,
Thanks for your comments on this draft.
In the SIP Service Examples I-D, flows 2.1 and 2.3 have just a single proxy
which Record-Routes. As a result, the Route header is constructed from the
Contact header alone. Since the Contact header does not contain a maddr
parameter, there is none in the Route header. If there were a maddr in the
Contact, it would be copied into the Route header.
Note that the URI from the Record-Route is used in the first hop route, so it is
not being copied into the Route header. The SIP Call Flows I-D starting with
flow 3.1.2 with two proxies also show this behavior more clearly.
Thanks,
Alan Johnston
WorldCom
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arunachalam Venkatraman wrote:
> I have a question on the formation of the Route header in the ACK at the UAC
> and in the re-INVITE at the UAS, in the examples 2.1, 2.3 etc.
>
> Why is the maddr parameter missing in the Route headers in these examples?
>
> As per the rfc2543-bis-02 , 6.35.2, all the parameters of the Record-Route
> in a final response to INVITE are copied to the Route header at the UAC.
> Likewise, at the UAS, except that the name-addr is replaced by the name-addr
> in Contact header.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
