These are indeed fuzzy cases.
IMO, I would treat problems with a URI in a topmost Route header the
same as a problem with the R-URI when there is no Route header.
(So I think 416 is appropriate for case (d).)
The others don't seem to fit 416 or anything else very well.
So when in doubt, go with 400.
I expect you will get some other, different, opinions.
Thanks,
Paul
On 6/8/2011 10:56 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi, RFC 3261 says:
>
> 21.4.14 416 Unsupported URI Scheme
> The server cannot process the request because the scheme of the URI
> in the Request-URI is unknown to the server
>
> But imagine these requests arriving to a proxy which just can talk SIP
> over UDP/TCP (and TLS over TCP):
>
>
> a) INVITE sips:al...@domain.org;transport=udp
> (note that transport=udp is not valid por sips scheme).
> b) INVITE sips:al...@domain.org;transport=sctp
> (note that proxy does not speak SCTP neither SCTP over TLS)
>
> c) INVITE sips:al...@domain.org;transport=tcp
> Route:<sips:other-proxy.org;transport=sctp>
> (note that proxy does not speak SCTP neither SCTP over TLS)
>
> d) INVITE sip:al...@domain.org
> Route:<http://google.com>
> (note the ugly HTTP URI in Route)
>
>
> Which should be the proxy rejection response in each case?
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
