RFC 5658. Section 5. On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:15 PM, SCG2 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
