Jonathan,
Yes, that is the text I was refering to. As a consequence of that a proxy
MUST NOT recurse on 302 if not responsible for the request URI (but this
text is not literally in RFC3261). Still, a 302 sent by the callee's proxy
could result in recursion in case of call forwarding scenarios, so
conclusion remains that a new 4xx is better
Regards,
Jeroen
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
Francois,
Refer to RFC3261 16.5: if a proxy is not responsible for the request
URI it MUST NOT recurse on 302
It most certainly does not say that.
Perhaps you are referring to this text:
A proxy MUST NOT add additional targets to the target set if the
Request-URI of the original request does not indicate a resource
this proxy is responsible for.
This is referring to the R-URI in the original INVITE, not the one in
the contact in the 3xx.
416 does not have the right semantics (since the endpoint may in fact
support sips, proxies currently should never generate this response)
WHy is that? Section 21.4.14 says nothing about UA vs. proxies. It
talks about servers. I think 416 is not far off.
However to be honest we need to explicitly indicate that the problem
was sips-to-sip so that the original UA can decide whether to retry.
Thus I'd suggest a new 4xx code.
-Jonathan R.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
