Downstream won't understand the ACK anyway and
might
be screw up any existing call...
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:33 AM
To: Richard; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] r-uri for ACK
It depends. ACK for negative replies must have identical URIs as INVITEs.
Otherwise, it is dicated by record-routing. Loose routers (i.e., those
that
implement RFC3261 as opposed to the obsoleted RFC2543) put peer's contact
in there, which is ideal. Strict routers put record-routing information
there. This alternative is valid in terms of an obsoleted spec.
-jiri
At 11:02 AM 10/14/2004, Richard wrote:
Hi,
I have a basic sip question. Whats the correct r-uri for ACK? I use
stateful
forwarding, so all SIP messages pass through ser. I have seen two
types of UA. Some use the contact field of 200 OK response as the r-uri
and other use the original r-uri for INVITE.
Is it a SIP violation to use the original r-uri of INVITE? The problem
here is that
if there is a parallel forking for the INVITE, it might be
sent to places other than the real callee.
Any comment?
Thanks,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan
http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org