I think that argument applies to the non-reliably sent PRs also. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Medhavi Bhatia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Aditya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Baniel Uri-CUB001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] record-route in 183?
> > > > Hi, > > The 200 OK response & any number of reliable provisional > responses (RPRs) that belong to a particular dialog > (identified by these particular From and To header tags) > cannot have different Record-Route headers. > > If at all you get a different record-route header set, > the response would also have a different tag in the To > header, thereby, creating another dialog. > > The UAC needs to keep track of all route-sets for each > new dialog that results for the initial INVITE and for > refresh requests for the existing sessions. > > Regards, > Siddharth. > > --------------- > Siddharth Toshniwal @ Hughes Software Systems, > Bangalore, India. > > > > > > > "Medhavi Bhatia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/25/2002 06:08:13 PM > > To: "Aditya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Baniel Uri-CUB001" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: (bcc: Siddharth J Toshniwal/HSSBLR) > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] record-route in 183? > > > > > Any headers in provisional responses are valid only for early dialogs, > so the 200 ok headers should replace. > > However, I dont see how they would be different. The spec does seem > to be fuzzy in this respect. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aditya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Medhavi Bhatia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Baniel Uri-CUB001" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:48 AM > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] record-route in 183? > > > > > > Will the UAC override the route Set made with 183 > > (provisionals) Record Routes with one from 200 OK? > > > > If multiple provisionals come will a new route set be > > made for each provisional at UAC ? > > > > -AD > > > > --- Medhavi Bhatia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If the INVITE had the record route, the 183 MUST > > > have it. > > > Consider a scenario, where the 183 reaches the UAC, > > > and > > > it had a contact in it. If the UAC now wants to send > > > a BYE, > > > and there was no record-route in the 183, the BYE > > > may > > > bypass any proxies originally intended to be in the > > > call path. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Baniel Uri-CUB001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 7:48 PM > > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] record-route in 183? > > > > > > > > > > Is record-route returned in 183? (or only in the > > > final response that > > > follows > > > > such as 200)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ======================================================================= > > > > Uri Baniel - Distinguished Member of Technical > > > Staff - Motorola > > > > Tel: (847) 632 4616; Fax: (847) 632 3963; > > > > "Learning that does not daily increase will daily > > > decrease. - EWC > > > > > > > > > ======================================================================= > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
