Thanks for the response. You point to another ambiguity. Should the remote target be updated per INVITE 2xx's Contact? If not, then why is section 13.2.2.4 pointing to section 12.2.1.2? When I posted my question, I had thought that it was trying to indicate to adjust the remote target as if the INVITE 2xx was a re-INVITE 2xx.
Is the following what rfc3261 is attempting to communicate? 1) Dialog forming INVITE 1xx/2xx creates route set based upon record-route and sets remote target per Contact. 2) Original INVITE's subsequent 101-199 has no impact upon a known dialog's route set and remote target. 3) Original INVITE's 2xx resets route set per received/missing record-route and does not set (or update) per Contact. 4) Retargeting (excluding original INVITE) request's 2xx within dialog allow the remote target to be updated. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rockson Li (zhengyli) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:58 PM > To: Brett Tate; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] rfc3261 section 13.2.2.4: > INVITE 2xx impacts > > 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? _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
