Thomas Froment writes: > > can you clarify what you mean by r-r rewriting? if i recall correctly, > > according to rfc 3261 r-r headers are added during dialog initiating > > request and after that route set does not change, i.e., proxies only > > need to r-r initial request. > > > Yes, RR-rewriting is described in section 3.2 of > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-froment-sip-record-route-fix-00.txt, > and drawbacks outlined in section 4...
so you are going to make a change to rfc3261 just like that? if so, what is the motivation for it? > Basically, the R-R has to be modified in the 200 OK response so that the > Route set seen by the caller will be different than the Route set seen > by the callee... why? > So, I voluntarily omitted to discuss the "transport=TLS" use case since > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-sips-03.txt already > take care of it, > so "sips:" scheme should be used and double RR is also to be recommended > when transiting from "sip:" to "sips:", it is described in the sip/sips > document. what you describe in above has nothing to do with my example where request comes in to proxy over udp using sip uri scheme and my proxy has an agreement with the next hop proxy that tls is used for all communication between the two proxies. of course my proxy cannot go and change uri scheme to sips. so please tell me exactly what my proxy has to do regarding record routing. -- juha _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
