This discussion raises one more doubt for me, pls. clarify.
UA1------->BtoBUA---------->UA2
Is the BtoBUA a SIP endpoint from UA1's point of view? In other
words, are the the "Require:" etc end-to-end headers sent by UA1,
meant for B2BUA or UA2?
Is the UAS part in in BtoBUA is bound by the definition and rules
in 3261?
thanks,
= Kedar =
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@dynamicsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 6:37 PM
> To: 'Padma Suresh'; vkg@lucent.com; pete@tech-know-ware.com
> Cc: sip@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Padma Suresh [mailto:padma_suresh@hotmail.com]
>
> > A B2BUA needs to propagate some of the headers received in a
> > request/response to the other endpoint. Example: Require...
>
> No. As emphatically as possible: NO. This is completely wrong,
> and it appears to be a growing -- and dangerous -- misconception.
>
> A B2BUA cannot transparently pass Require through. It must
> understand and invoke the extension indicated.
>
> "The Require header field contains a list of option tags,
> described in
> Section 19.2. Each option tag defines a SIP extension that MUST be
> understood to process the request."
>
> A back to back user agent *is* a UAS, and *is* bound by this
> provision.
>
> Whether the UAC portion then turns around and imposes the same
> requirement on the UAS it contacts is a local decision.
>
> /a