Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Brett,
Thanks for you comments! See inline.
------
Section 6 paragraph 2 last sentence: Since using another's To tag when
sending the 199, the draft should mention
something concerning headers Contact and Record-Route. If proxy
chooses not to add them, a missing Contact and Record-
Route will not be an issue for UAC; however another proxy (not
supporting this draft) may be surprised to see their
Record-Route entry missing.
Two alternative solutions I can think of:
1. We mandate a forking proxy which supports 199 to store the C/R-R
information received from the UAC, in order to insert it in any 199 it
generates for that session.
2. We say that IF the forking proxy stores the C/R-R information
received from the UAC, it shall insert it in any 199 it generates for
that session.
In effect the proxy is sending the response in lieu of the final
response it is not ready to forward. IMO it ought to include whatever
Contact and R-R is present in that final response. There isn't any need
to *store* that information, since the final response is at hand when
the 199 is being generated.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.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
