Attila, The version of the Call Flows you reference is roughly based on bis-04. The latest version is based on bis-09 and is:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-call-flows-00. txt You are right, the Route and Record-Route processing in bis-09 is much simpler, and far superior to the previous versions. Thanks, Alan Johnston WorldCom sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Attila Sipos > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Record-route in > "draft-ietf-sip-call-flows-05 .txt" > > > > Referring to section "3.1.2 Successful SIP to SIP > through two proxies"... > > 1. User Agent B gets an INVITE from Proxy 2 > (only request URI, Routes and Record-routes shown): > > F7 INVITE Proxy 2 -> B > INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > Record-Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];maddr=ss2.wcom.com>, > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];maddr=ss1.wcom.com> > > 2. User Agent B then sends ringing: > > F9 180 Ringing B -> Proxy 2 > SIP/2.0 180 Ringing > (no record-route because I think this call-flow doc > is out-of-date) > > 3. User Agent B sends OK: > > F12 200 OK B -> Proxy 2 > SIP/2.0 200 OK > Record-Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];maddr=ss2.wcom.com>, > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];maddr=ss1.wcom.com> > > 4. ACK from proxy: > > F17 ACK Proxy 2 -> B > ACK sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > (no record-route) > > 5. B then hangs up > > F18 BYE User B -> Proxy 2 > BYE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];maddr=ss1.wcom.com>, > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Could someone tell me where it says in RFC2543 bis-09 > that you should insert the remote contact? > And where is the route > for <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];maddr=ss2.wcom.com>?? > Are these simply old behaviours based on an old draft? > > > The examples used in the newest draft, > RFC2543 bis-09 (section "16.12.1 Examples") > do not insert the remote contact into the route > and they do not seem to remove any routes. > > Would I be right in saying that, for bis-09, the route > processing is much simpler? > > > To me it seems that if a UA receives an INVITE > with Record-Route:1,2,3,4 (I realise 1,2,3,4 are illegal > route entries but it's just to make a point) then ALL > responses to this INVITE should use Record-Route:1,2,3,4. > > e.g. > proxy User-agent > ---INVITE Record-Route:1,2,3,4-------> > <--180 ringing Record-Route:1,2,3,4--- > <--200 OK Record-Route:1,2,3,4--- > ---ACK-------------------------------> > > Then when the UA wants to hangup: > <--BYE Route:1,2,3,4---------- > ---OK--------------------------------> > > > Is my understanding correct? > > > Any help is appreciated. > > Regards, > > Attila > > > Attila Sipos > Software Engineer > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.vegastream.com> ________________________________________________________________________ ____ _______ VegaStream : A World of difference for your Integrated Communications EMEA Office (UK) Tel + 44 - 1344 784900 Fax + 44 - 1344 784901 USA Office Tel + 1 - 561-995-2300 Fax + 1 - 561-995-2600 This e-mail and any attachments hereto are strictly confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee please notify the sender by return and delete the message. You must not disclose, forward or copy this e-mail or attachments to any third party without the prior consent of the sender. _______________________________________________ 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
