> But 200 at (5) so not have any Record-Route header in it. > > What should be the UAC behavior?
The added/missing Record-Route within the re-INVITE's 2xx has no impact. > Should it resuse the old route set created after step (2). ? Yes; however re-INVITE's 2xx may have contained a different Contact. > Can you point me any text from RFC which supports this? RFC 3261 section 12.2: "Requests within a dialog MAY contain Record-Route and Contact header fields. However, these requests do not cause the dialog's route set to be modified, although they may modify the remote target URI. Specifically, requests that are not target refresh requests do not modify the dialog's remote target URI, and requests that are target refresh requests do." And for completeness, see RFC 6141 which updates RFC 3261 concerning retargeting. RFC 6141 section 4.9 also reiterates that the whole route set can be updated when transitioning from an early to confirmed dialog. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
