Hi Abhishek, Yes. Since the UPDATE is typically done to alter the SDP details in case of early dialog, there might be a stateful-proxy (may be B2BUA) in between which would want the SDP to be modified and sent forward. So, its better to include the Route <> header in the UPDATE request if you have received the Record-Route in 18x.
Thanks, Somesh -----Original Message----- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of ext Abhishek Sahu Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:27 PM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: [Sip-implementors] Record Route header processing for unreliable 18x response at UAC end Hello All I've one query regarding behavior of Record-Route. If Record-Route is present in SIP unreliable 18x response and UPDATE needs to be sent prior to receiving of 2xx response. So should the Route header for the UPDATE request be updated according to the Record-Route of 18x response? In this case the dialog has not been established yet. INVITE with Route------------------------> 180 with Record Route <----------------------------------- UPDATE--------------------------------> Regards Abhishek Sahu Aricent =============================================================================== Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. =============================================================================== _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
