Re: [Sip] WGLC (official) for scvrtdisco

["Bob Penfield" <bpenfield@acmepacket.com>]

The draft mentions the Path header (twice) in section 6.2:

  "While in itself harmless, this complicates matters for nodes that use
   the recorded route vector (or recorded Path vector) in the
   determination of a service route for future use."

and

  "Instead of following the procedure in RFC 3261 [4], proxies used with
   Service-Route that are inserting Record-Route or Path header field
   values SHOULD record not one but two route values when processing the
   request."

There is no reference to the Path draft/RFC. Should it say Service-Route
vector/header instead? However, given the SHOULD NOT about proxies modifying
the Service-Route header, Path might be correct, but the discussion seems to
be more appropriate to the Path draft/RFC.

cheers,
(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
bpenfield@acmepacket.com


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip