Check section 16.6 items 2 and 6. Regards, Hisham
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Sachin Shenoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 4:03 PM > To: Sp.Raja; Sip-Implementors > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Target set caluclation & Route header > > > > Do you think following lines (lines within #) have to be added within > RFC section 16.5 Determining Request Targets > > > "If the domain of the Request-URI indicates a domain this element is > not responsible for, the Request-URI MUST be placed into the target > set as the only target, and the element MUST proceed to the task of > Request Forwarding (Section 16.6). > > There are many circumstances in which a proxy might receive a > request for a domain it is not responsible for. A > firewall proxy > handling outgoing calls (the way HTTP proxies handle outgoing > requests) is an example of where this is likely to occur." > > #################################### > # Addition suggested?! > If the route-header is present, the Request-URI MUST be > placed into the > target set as the only target, and the element MUST proceed > to the task of > Request Forwarding (Section 16.6). > # End of Addition. > ##################################### > > "If the target set for the request has not been predetermined as > described above, this implies that the element is > responsible for the > domain in the Request-URI, and the element MAY use > whatever mechanism > it desires to determine where to send the request..." > > Thanks > Sachin > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sp.Raja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Sachin Shenoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Sip-Implementors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:04 PM > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Target set caluclation & Route header > > > > Even though it is not explicitly stated, > > > > RFC 3261 Sec 20.34 reads > > > > The Route header field is used to force routing for a > request through > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > the listed set of proxies. Examples of the use of the Route header > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > field are in Section 16.12.1. > > > > -Sp.Raja > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Sachin Shenoy > > Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 6:03 PM > > To: Sp.Raja > > Cc: Sip-Implementors > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Target set caluclation & > Route header > > > > > > Thanks for you reply. > > > > I couldn't find mention of this explicitly anywhere in the > RFC. Can you > > please give me any pointer to section within RFC which > deals with this. > > > > I expected section 16.5 Determining Request Targets, to > explictly mention > > that if route is present then it would be placed as the > only entry within > > the > > target set. > > > > Thanks > > Sachin > > > > > > comments inline > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Sachin Shenoy > > Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 5:33 PM > > To: Sip-Implementors > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Target set caluclation & Route header > > > > > > Hi, > > > > According to the RFC, If the domain of the request-uri is of proxies > domain > > then proxy is responsible for routing the request. What > would happen if > > the domain of the request URI is proxies domain, but the > request also > > contains route header? > > > > What should proxy do? Forward the request to the location > in the route > > header? Or do a locations search and forward to the > locations returned > > from the search. > > [Raja] First preference always goes to the Route > irrespective of whether > the > > proxy is responsible for the domain or not > > > > Thanks > > Sachin > > _______________________________________________ > 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
