Filippos Vasilakis <vasilakis...@gmail.com> writes: > On the other hand, in RFC3665, section 3.11, does not copy the Route > headers to the ACK and this is confusing. Seems like RFC3665 is in error, > but again to me it seems that appending Route headers in a transaction ACK > is pointless, since the final downstream transaction has already been > ACK-ed by the middle proxy (like in 3.11 example in RFC3665).
It seems to me almost certain that F14 (the ACK from the client) in RFC 3665 section 3.11 is mistaken for not having the Route header (as you point out). It's probably just an oversight when writing the example. In particular, F14 as written won't actually reach Proxy 1, since Proxy 1's address is ss1.atlanta.example.com (the address in the Route header in the INVITE), not biloxi.example.com (the address in the To header). Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
