Looks like an error to me too. Isn't there another error in the Via in F18 in "3.8. Unsuccessful No Answer" ?
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Benjamin Jacob Sent: Tue 27/05/2008 18:52 To: SIPImplementors Mailing list Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Session with multiple proxy authentication Hmm Vishy, sorry about the oversight on my part. I think it's an error over there in that particular flow. If you see other examples in the same RFC 3665, section 3.9 and so on, it is the topmost Via that created the transaction on that particular entity(i.e. the proxy here). This is as per the RFC 3261 as well, the same section 17.1.1.3. So it should be P1's sent-by-value in the Via in the ACK. Any expert on the mailing list to confirm this error? - Ben. --- On Tue, 5/27/08, vishy dewangan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: vishy dewangan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Session with multiple proxy authentication > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 12:29 PM > so Ben, since original INVITE request is > > F6 INVITE Proxy 1 -> Proxy 2 > INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > ss1.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK230f2.1 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74b21 > > So its ACK should be > > F8 ACK Proxy 1 -> Proxy 2 > ACK sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > ss1.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK230f2.1 > > isn't it?? > bye > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Benjamin Jacob > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hmmm.. you are talking of msg F8, I presume. > > > > RFC 3261, Section 17.1.1.3 Construction of the ACK > Request: > > The ACK MUST contain a single Via header field, and > > this MUST be equal to the top Via header field of > the original > > request. > > > > This is for ACKs for non-2xx responses. > > > > - Ben. > > > > > > --- On Tue, 5/27/08, vishy dewangan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> From: vishy dewangan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Session with > multiple proxy authentication > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 10:58 AM > >> Ben > >> > >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > >> > client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74b21 > >> Then why Via header contain sent by address as URI > of Alice > >> ? > >> > >> bye > >> > >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Benjamin Jacob > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Comments inline : > >> > > >> > > >> > --- On Tue, 5/27/08, vishy dewangan > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> From: vishy dewangan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Session with > multiple > >> proxy authentication > >> >> To: > [email protected] > >> >> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 9:56 AM > >> > > >> >> So my doubts are > >> >> a) For failed responses, is ACK message > handling > >> is hop by > >> >> hop? if yes > >> >> then why ? > >> > Yes, as per the state machine for an INVITE > >> transaction, on receipt of any 3xx-6xx message, > the > >> Transaction layer itself will send an ACK for the > response, > >> but for 2xx responses, the TU is responsible for > sending the > >> ACK.In case of B2BUA/UAC, their core will send > back an ACK, > >> while the Proxy's core would forward the 2xx > to the > >> originator. > >> > > >> > One of the reasons that I can think of is, > ACKs for > >> non-2xx responses won't containt any SDP, > whereas ACKs > >> for 2xx responses could typically involve sending > SDP which > >> is the prerogative of the call originator ONLY. So > ACKs for > >> 2xx responses would be end-to-end. > >> > > >> > > >> >> b)If it is hop by hop then what will be > content of > >> ACK > >> >> message? If it > >> >> is similar to one menioned above then why > ? > >> >> > >> > Yes. similar. > >> > > >> > > >> > - Ben. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > Sip-implementors mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > > >> > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > >> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
