On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 13:46 +0800, [email protected] wrote: > I have two questions for route information preprocessing of initial INVITE > with Route headers
These questions would be more appropriate on the sip-implementors <[email protected]> mailing list. > first question: > > UA(or B2BUA) receives an initial INVITE with Route headers, assuming UA's > host is example.com > > if the sip entity which sends the INVITE is a loose router, the INVITE may > be like this: > > INVITE sip:[email protected] > Route: <sip:[email protected];lr> > > if the sip entity which sends the INVITE is a strict router, the INVITE may > be like this: > > INVITE sip:[email protected] > Route: <sip:[email protected]> > > we cannot distinguish those two scenarioes because Requet-URIs in two > scenarioes are similar. > if we do route information preprocessing according RFC3261 section 16.4, we > will get two different > results. And there is no desciption for UA route information preprocessing > in RFC3261, RFC3261 > section 16.4 just describes proxy behavior. > > How to processing route information of initial INVITE with Route headers > for UA? > > > second question: > > as RFC3261 section 16.4 descibed, proxy must check whether the request-uri > was placed by the > proxy previously. But the request-uri in initial INVITE must not be placed > by the proxy previously. > > Is something wrong with RFC3261 section 16.4? _______________________________________________ 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
