Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

Hi Paul and Dale, I just wanted to say thank you for the updates. We haven't got a fully working solution yet so are not completely sure what the fix will be, but your input has helped guide our investigation a lot. On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 15:11, Dale R. Worley wrote: > David Cunningham writes

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

David Cunningham writes: > I must say RFC 6665 4.4.1 does seem to make it clear that the route set in > the NOTIFY should be used, and therefore it's incorrect that the > re-SUBSCRIBE sends directly to the Contact address rather than using the > Record-Routes in the NOTIFY. It's very helpful to ha

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

Thank you Paul, and thank you Richard. I must say RFC 6665 4.4.1 does seem to make it clear that the route set in the NOTIFY should be used, and therefore it's incorrect that the re-SUBSCRIBE sends directly to the Contact address rather than using the Record-Routes in the NOTIFY. It's very helpful

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

Though I notice that RFC 6665 4.4.1 also says: unless the NOTIFY request contains a "Subscription-State" of "terminated." And in our case the subscription state is "terminated". The dialog is then over, so I guess that the other RFCs then apply. On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 21:43, David Cunningha

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

On 7/25/19 5:53 AM, David Cunningham wrote: Though I notice that RFC 6665 4.4.1 also says:     unless the NOTIFY request contains a "Subscription-State" of "terminated." And in our case the subscription state is "terminated". The dialog is then over, so I guess that the other RFCs then appl

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

On 7/23/19 7:38 PM, David Cunningham wrote: Hi Paul, I'd just like to check my understanding of your reply. The first SUBSCRIBE is from the UAC sip:113...@es8.example.com , and gets a 200 OK reply from the UAS. It is the 200 OK that should contain

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

Hi all, Sorry, but I am a bit confused here. I hope someone can clarify things for me. According to RFC 6665 4.4.1 the subscribe dialog (usage) is created when the first NOTIFY request is received by the subscriber and the record-route set (if present) is taken as route set for the dialog:

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

Hi Paul, I'd just like to check my understanding of your reply. The first SUBSCRIBE is from the UAC sip:113...@es8.example.com, and gets a 200 OK reply from the UAS. It is the 200 OK that should contain the Record-Route header? And would that then oblige the UAC to use that route on all futur

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

Thank you very much Paul, we'll try that. On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 13:03, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > On 7/22/19 7:09 PM, David Cunningham wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > Thank you for the reply. Below is the full exchange, which hopefully > > makes things clearer. > > Yes it does. > > > Ultimately the pro

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

On 7/22/19 7:09 PM, David Cunningham wrote: Hi Paul, Thank you for the reply. Below is the full exchange, which hopefully makes things clearer. Yes it does. Ultimately the problem is the SUBSCRIBE at the end which is being sent to port 53426 - is it correct because it's going to the Contac

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

Hi Paul, Thank you for the reply. Below is the full exchange, which hopefully makes things clearer. Ultimately the problem is the SUBSCRIBE at the end which is being sent to port 53426 - is it correct because it's going to the Contact address in the NOTIFY, or is it incorrect because it's not foll

Re: [Sip-implementors] NOTIFY and Record-Route

Inline On 7/21/19 6:42 PM, David Cunningham wrote: Hello, We have the following issue and are looking for some advice on the expected behaviour: 1. UAC sends SUBSCRIBE to UAS at x.x.x.x:5061, receives 200 OK in response. 2. UAS sends NOTIFY to UAC with Record-Route x.x.x.x:5061, Via x.x.x.x:50