Vijay -
What piece of text are you looking at that is leading
you to believe that the remote target URI would be placed
in the route set? There shouldn't be _any_ text that could be
interpreted that way. The remote target URI and the route set are
disjoint concepts.
The first element of the route set not being a loose router
only affects how the Route header field of a message is
constructed, not what is in the route set. Yes - if that
first element doesn't contain ;lr, the Remote target URI is going
to be placed in the Route header field. But that is not the same
thing as placing it in the route set.
RjS
On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 09:04, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> inline.
>
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > "Vijay K. Gurbani" wrote:
> >
> >>Inline.
> >>
> >>Attila Sipos wrote:
> >>
> >>>I have a question regarding section "12.2.1.1 Generating the Request"
> >>>in RFC2543 bis-09.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> If the route set is not empty, and its first URI does not contain
> >>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>> lr parameter, the UAC MUST place the first URI from the route set
> >>>> into the Request-URI, stripping any parameters that are not allowed
> >>>> in a Request-URI. The UAC MUST add a Route header field containing
> >>>> the remainder of the route set values in order, including all
> >>>> parameters. The UAC MUST then place the remote target URI into the
> >>>> Route header field as the last value.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, if the remote target is sip:user@remoteua and the route
> >>>> set contains
> >>>>
> >>>> <sip:proxy1>,<sip:proxy2>,<sip:proxy3;lr>,<sip:proxy4>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The request will be formed with the following Request-URI and Route
> >>>> header field:
> >>>>
> >>>> METHOD sip:proxy1
> >>>> Route: <sip:proxy2>,<sip:proxy3;lr>,<sip:proxy4>,<sip:user@remoteua>
> >>>>
> >>>The last sentence in the first paragraph says:
> >>>"The UAC MUST then place the remote target URI into the
> >>>Route header field as the last value."
> >>>
> >>>My question:
> >>>Is the remote traget URI added to the "route set"?
> >>
> >>Yes; it is appended to the Route set.
> >
> > No, that is not right. Please see Robert's response on this - Robert is
> > correct.
>
> I am afraid, as far as I can tell, in the particular case that Attila
> is describing above, the remote target URI will be added to the Route
> set because *the topmost entry in the Route set did NOT contain a
> "lr"*. Thus, the UA is dealing with a next hop server that is not
> -09bis compliant.
>
> From a UAC's point of view, the target URI is used as the R-URI only
> when the Route set is empty, or the first entry in the Route set
> contains an "lr" (thereby specifying a next hop server that is -09bis
> compliant).
>
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
> Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
> Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
> Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
