Brett, I think you're correct, this is another inconsistence.
Actually, I am quite confused here, why 3261 does not allow remote target get updated here, Record-Route can get updated, I do NOT see any reason remote target cannot. Thanks -Rockson -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Tate Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Sip-implementors] rfc3261 section 13.2.2.4: INVITE 2xx impacts RFC 3261 section 13.2.2.4 discusses the impacts of INVITE 2xx when a dialog known because prior 1xx. Paragraph 3 appears to conflict with paragraph 2 concerning updating the route set. Paragraph 2 indicates that the route set must be recomputed per 12.2.1.2 (which updates the remote-target without discussing record-route). Paragraph 3 appears to indicate that the route set should be impacted by 2xx record-route for backwards compatibility reasons. What should be the impacts of received INVITE 2xx's record-route upon existing dialog switching to confirmed? Thanks, Brett _______________________________________________ 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
