>From RFC3261 page 29: "The relative order of header field rows with the same field name is important. Multiple header field rows with the same field-name MAY be present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that header field is defined as a comma-separated list (that is, if follows the grammar defined in Section 7.3). It MUST be possible to combine the multiple header field rows into one "field-name: field-value" pair, without changing the semantics of the message, by appending each subsequent field-value to the first, each separated by a comma."
In your case Record-Route: <sip:[email protected]:5060>, <sip:[email protected]:5166> Record-Route: sip:a.b.c.d:4144 Is equivalent to: Record-Route: <sip:[email protected]:5060>, <sip:[email protected]:5166>, sip:a.b.c.d:4144 Regards, Aaron > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of SCG2 > Sent: Monday, 22 February 2010 10:10 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Handling multiple record route headers > > More info: > > > > UAS is Fring wired into our own SIP server. > > > > UAC happens to be a CISCO PSTN Gateway. > > > > Fring is serving up multiple headers (on separate lines) in a 200 OK > response - which we don't see with Linksys, Polycom, XTen, etc. > > > > So is there a rule for expressing this: > > > > Record-Route: <sip:[email protected]:5060>, <sip:[email protected]:5166> > > Record-Route: sip:a.b.c.d:4144 > > > > as a single record route? > > > > I would assume the ordering of these must be important - e.g. always > add 2nd > Record Route to front of first Record-Route. > > > > .but I can find anything that tells me so. > > > > Thanks. > > > > From: SCG2 [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 22 February 2010 09:46 > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: Handling multiple record route headers > > > > Hi, > > > > I am receiving a: > > > > > > SIP/2.0 200 OK > > From: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=2A515F7C-E78 > > To: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=2852349aa700191083d2e580b676d2c3 > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > [email protected];branch=74120f13ef6c47555033517203dcd8ee.4;rport=5060;received > =a.b. > c.d > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [email protected];branch=a3cfdc1207b90334f3dd00bc032115bf.2 > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [email protected];branch=z9hG4bK4305421055 > > CSeq: 101 INVITE > > Call-ID: [email protected] > > Contact: <sip:[email protected]:53255> > > Record-Route: <sip:[email protected]:5060>, <sip:[email protected]:5166> > > Record-Route: <sip:a.b.c.d:4144> > > Content-Type: application/sdp > > Content-Length: 206 > > ... > > > > > > from a UAS. > > > > > > Can someone tell me how that double record route should be expressed in > a > sinlge Record-Route header I might pass on to the calling UAC please? > > > > Specifically, should the 2nd record route be placed at the start or the > end > of the first when amalgamating them? > > > > And whatever the answer, is that always the rule? > > > > Can't find anything in the RFCs I've loked at. > > > > Many thanks. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
