Jan Janak wrote:
Yes, you are right, I confused two things -- target refreshers are not related to record-routing, they update just remote target, thanks for pointing this out.
Anyway, you still don't know if message FOOBAR creates dialog.
Well, IMO absence or presence of tag in the To header field should be the definite difference between the two. INVITE which creates a dialg would be To-tag-less, while one that refreshes a dialog would usually have one. And if my memory serves according to the RFC INVITE is the only type of message which can create a dialog.
-Maxim
Jan.
On 03-01 19:14, Juha Heinanen wrote:
i based my reasoning regarding the need to add record route only to the initial request to this text in rfc3261. i guess the proxy may add record route to any request, but since it doesn't have any effect to the dialog state, i don't see a point of doing it.
-- juha
12.2 Requests within a Dialog
Requests within a dialog MAY contain Record-Route and Contact header fields. However, these requests do not cause the dialog s route set to be modified, although they may modify the remote target URI. Specifi- cally, requests that are not target refresh requests do not modify the dialog s remote target URI, and requests that are target refresh requests do. For dialogs that have been established with an INVITE, the only target refresh request defined is re-INVITE (see Section 14). Other extensions may define different target refresh requests for dialogs established in other ways. Note that an ACK is NOT a target refresh request. Target refresh requests only update the dialog s remote target URI, and not the route set formed from the Record-Route. Updating the latter would introduce severe backwards compatibility problems with RFC 2543-compliant systems.
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers