[Serusers] AW: Snom phone (fwd) more fromn greg fausak

Greg, ooppss that actually changes the scene. Maybe it was too late for me last night already… You are right, the 200 Ok goes to the PRACK and the phone mixes that up. I changed it in the phone code and that will be part of the next release. Thanks, Christian -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Robert Messer [mailto:rmesser@abpintl.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. März 2003 02:25 An: cs(a)snom.de Betreff: FW: Snom phone (fwd) more fromn greg fausak FYI – More from greg Robert Messer 972-745-1220 Direct ___________________ ABP International, Inc. snom technology - VoIP Phones www.abptech.com 972-745-1221 Phone 972-745-1226 Fax -----Original Message----- From: Greg Fausak [mailto:greg@august.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:13 PM To: 'Kevin' Cc: 'Robert Messer'; sip(a)august.net; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: Snom phone (fwd) Kevin, I initially sent the packet: This is the 200 OK (response to the INVITE) message as delivered to the phone. I couldn't figure out what you were saying, so I went back to the ethereal trace. After the snom phone receives a 183 status message, it sends a PRACK to the PROXY. This PRACK is OKed, without a Record-route. The next message is an OK responding to the original INVITE, which does indeed have a Record-Route. So, you are saying that the OK to your PRACK needs a record route? I can do that I think, because the OK to the INVITE does indeed have a Record-route. I don't even know what a PRACK is for... ---greg -----Original Message----- From: Kevin [mailto:kmoroz@abpintl.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 5:19 PM To: Greg Fausak Cc: 'Robert Messer' Subject: FW: Snom phone (fwd) Hi Greg, Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Normally it is faster but as I stated the SIP inter- operability was last week which caused the delay. Looks like the issue is with the SER proxy. If I knew the specification deeper I should have been able to answer it myself. Engineering cc’s Jiri on their response to me so he is aware of the issue. Regards, Kevin -----Original Message----- The phone updates the route until it receives a 2xx code. The 200 Ok response does not contain such a route therefore the phone uses the last route it receives in the 200 – which is empty. Therefore, the phone MUST send the ACK directly to the gateway. § 12.1.2 of the RFC3261. The dialog is NOT established by the 401-challened request. The proxy can very easily solve the problem by putting itself into the routing path of the 200 Ok.