Alex Balashov wrote: > Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > >> 2009/5/11 Alex Balashov <[email protected]>: >>> It sounds like the CANCEL with the To-tag should have a Route header as >>> well in order for it to be processed like any other sequential/in-dialog >>> request -- that is to say, under loose_route(). >> But it would be incorrect anyway. A CANCEL for an initial-INVITE >> shouldn't have To tag since the CANCEL must end the whole UAC >> transaction, not just an early-dialog. > > Agreed, but I think the more harmless approach would be for the To tag > issue to be ignored by the proxy and passed to the receiving UA to deal > with.
Although, since the has_totag() check is done first and loose_route() second in stock configs from which people derive theirs, I guess that really wouldn't work... -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
