> > "If the forking proxy has stored the Contact > > and Record-Route headers for the early dialogs, > > it SHALL insert the headers in the 199 responses."
<snip> > > Also, if there is no compulsion to store these > > header fields, why make it mandatory to transmit > > them if they have been stored? > > I was requested to add text about the possibility > to store the header fields and included them in > the response. I see no harm in doing so, since > storing the parameters is optional anyway. For clarity, the following is a snippet from my 11/17/2008 draft-ietf-sip-199-02 comments and questions posting to the sip list. I don't have strong preference concerning the normative strength to include (or not include) the headers. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg25605.html "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. Additionally since this draft defines a 1xx with To tag which does not create a dialog (unless section 4 paragraph 4 modified), does this draft update RFC 3261?" _______________________________________________ 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
