Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-199-02: comments and questions

[Bob Penfield <BPenfield at acmepacket.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
>Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:33 AM
>To: Christer Holmberg
>Cc: sip at ietf.org; Brett Tate
>Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-199-02: comments and questions
>
>
>
>Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>
>> 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.

The problem with this is that the non-2xx final response will not necessarily have Record-Route or Contact headers since 3261 does not require it. In fact, a strict reading of Table 2 & 3 forbids them in most error responses. If the proxy is going to generate a 199 response, it should include the same Record-Route & Contact as the original early dialog creating 1xx response.

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