Hi, >>>Section 6 paragraph 2 last sentence: Since using another's To tag when >>>sending the 199, the draft should mention something concerning headers Contact and Record-Route. If proxy >>>chooses not to add them, a missing Contact and Record-Route will not be an issue for UAC; however another proxy (not >>>supporting this draft) may be surprised to see their Record-Route entry missing. >> >>Two alternative solutions I can think of: >> >>1. We mandate a forking proxy which supports 199 to store the C/R-R >>information received from the UAC, in order to insert it in any 199 it
>>generates for that session. >> >>2. We say that IF the forking proxy stores the C/R-R information >>received from the UAC, it shall insert it in any 199 it >>generates for that session. > >In effect the proxy is sending the response in lieu of the >final response it is not ready to forward. IMO it ought to >include whatever Contact and R-R is present in that final >response. There isn't any need to *store* that information, >since the final response is at hand when the 199 is being generated. True. But, if the error response also terminates other early dialogs (in case forking also occured downstream), and if the forking proxy is able to identify those early dialogs, the forking proxy generates 199s also for those dialogs. The proxy would need to store the C/R-R information in order to be able to insert it in the 199s for those early dialogs. However, I don't think that "multiple forking" will occur very often. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
