>>>>> I??aki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I propose another interpretation. As soon as Contact is supposed >> to change remote target of message receiver, and as soon as there >> is some initially assigned remote target when INVITE is set > Could you explain what you mean with "and as soon as there is some > initially assigned remote target when INVITE is set"? > How can be the remote target assigned just when sending the INVITE???
Dialog data in UA contains remote target. (See section 12 for details.) RFC3261 doesn't declare (AFAIK) its initial value, but it declares - remote target shall be set to contact value of response - remote target shall be used for RURI of next requests within dialog (except case of strict routing - but this is corner case) It doesn't limit implementation, but the only implementation which conforms common sense is that when UA (as UAC) sends initial INVITE, remote target in the UA state is already assigned to the value sent in RURI. Having the remote target unassigned until first response with contact is IMO senseless - particularly, because there is no strong rule to carry contact in each response. >> For finishing of early dialog, I suppose you should extract contact if it is >> sent in response, and avoid to change remote target otherwise. > I really can't understand it. The "remote" target is the received > "Contact", so if there is not received "Contact" during 1XX responses, > then there is no remote target and in-dialog requests are not possible > from UAC to UAS. Am I wrong? See above. To clarify: this is kind of proof "by the rule of contraries": supposing that the remote target is initially unassigned you fall in contradiction with section 20. -- Valentin Nechayev PortaOne Inc., Software Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
