El Thursday 21 August 2008 17:47:41 Attila Sipos escribió:
> ok thanks.
>
> well in that case, I think you are correct except for case 4)
>
> >>4) Is a 2xx with "Contact" and "RR". route set is updated since it's a
> >> 2xx. remote target is not updated since it already exists.
> >>- route set: <sip:server3>
> >>- remote target: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I didn't think the route set gets changed on 2xx if an 18x has already
> established the dialog.
>
> Can you tell me where it says 2xx is special?
Well, RFC2543 didn't make mandatory mirroring RR in 1XX responses and now 2XX
updates route set because that reason (RR could no be present in any 1XX).
But in case RR are present in some 1XX then I'm not sure if RR in 2XX should
replace them:
------
13.2.2.4 2xx Responses
the dialog MUST be transitioned to
the "confirmed" state, and the route set for the dialog MUST be
recomputed based on the 2xx response using the procedures of Section
12.2.1.2.
Note that the only piece of state that is recomputed is the route
set...
------
But "12.2.1.2 Processing the Responses" says NOTHING about the route set (as
already reported in this thread) so this is a big confussion, a big bug in
RFC3261.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
