From: "Brett Tate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Notice that paragraph 3 indicates why the route set must be recomputed.
I agree that the record-route of 1xx is likely the same as 2xx; however
for backward compatibility (record-route not in 1xx) and potentially
related proxy rewrite issues, i
> Clearly, the Record-Routes in the 1xx and
> the 2xx have to be the same, because they
> are derived from the Record-Routes seen in
> the INVITE as the UAS received it. Given
> that restriction, when RFC 3261 says that
> a 2xx "updates the route set", the route
> set proper (that is, exclud
El Thursday 21 August 2008 17:47:41 Attila Sipos escribió:
> ok thanks.
>
> well in that case, I think you are correct except for case 4)
>
> >>4) Is a 2xx with "Contact" and "RR". route set is updated since it's a
> >> 2xx. remote target is not updated since it already exists.
> >>- route set:
>
stillo
Sent: 21 August 2008 16:20
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] rfc3261 section 13.2.2.4: INVITE 2xx impacts
El Thursday 21 August 2008 17:14:41 Attila Sipos escribió:
> >>1) You receive a 180 wihout Contact and Record-Route.
> >>2) Later a 18
From: "Brett Tate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RFC 3261 section 13.2.2.4 discusses the impacts of INVITE 2xx when a
dialog known because prior 1xx.
Paragraph 3 appears to conflict with paragraph 2 concerning updating the
route set. Paragraph 2 indicates that the route set must be recomput
El Thursday 21 August 2008 17:14:41 Attila Sipos escribió:
> >>1) You receive a 180 wihout Contact and Record-Route.
> >>2) Later a 183:
> >>3) Later a 183:
> >>4) Later a 200:
>
> Question:
> Are your four responses on the same fork?
Yes. In other case (if there are replies from different forks)
Iñaki Baz
Castillo
Sent: 21 August 2008 15:36
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] rfc3261 section 13.2.2.4: INVITE 2xx impacts
El Thursday 21 August 2008 16:15:25 Brett Tate escribió:
> Is the following what rfc3261 is attempting to communicate?
I think s
El Thursday 21 August 2008 16:15:25 Brett Tate escribió:
> Is the following what rfc3261 is attempting to communicate?
I think so but just a question:
> 1) Dialog forming INVITE 1xx/2xx creates route set based upon
> record-route and sets remote target per Contact.
>
> 2) Original INVITE's subseq
sage-
> From: Rockson Li (zhengyli) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:58 PM
> To: Brett Tate; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] rfc3261 section 13.2.2.4:
> INVITE 2xx impacts
>
> Brett,
>
> I think you&#
EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brett Tate
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:18 AM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] rfc3261 section 13.2.2.4: INVITE 2xx impacts
RFC 3261 section 13.2.2.4 discusses the impacts of INVITE 2xx when a
dialog
El Miércoles, 20 de Agosto de 2008, Brett Tate escribió:
> Thanks for the response.
>
> The following is the basis for the conflict: "the route set for the
> dialog MUST be recomputed based on the 2xx response using the procedures
> of Section 12.2.1.2."
>
> The procedure of section 12.2.1.2 does n
target URI).
> -Original Message-
> From: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:53 PM
> To: Brett Tate; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] rfc3261 section 13.2.2.4:
> INVITE 2xx impacts
>
t;From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Brett Tate
>Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:18 PM
>To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>Subject: [Sip-implementors] rfc3261 section 13.2.2.4: INVITE
>2xx impacts
>
>RFC 3261 section 13.2.2.4 discu
RFC 3261 section 13.2.2.4 discusses the impacts of INVITE 2xx when a
dialog known because prior 1xx.
Paragraph 3 appears to conflict with paragraph 2 concerning updating the
route set. Paragraph 2 indicates that the route set must be recomputed
per 12.2.1.2 (which updates the remote-target withou
14 matches
Mail list logo
