I am much in favor of the second one ... thought the other solution is OK also<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/2/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Daniel-Constantin Mierla</b> <<a href="mailto:daniel@voice-system.ro">
daniel@voice-system.ro</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Here is the result. By ignoring the R-URI when matching the INVITE
<br>transaction, OpenSER becomes not RFC3261 compliant. In chapter 9.1.<br>Client behavior when canceling it is stated as MUST that R-URI must be<br>the same.<br><br><snip><br><br> The following procedures are used to construct a CANCEL request. The
<br> Request-URI, Call-ID, To, the numeric part of CSeq, and From header<br> fields in the CANCEL request MUST be identical to those in the<br> request being cancelled, including tags.<br><br></snip><br><br>Because the R-URI is not the same, OpenSER generates another branch id.
<br><br>What should be the solution, to remove the ruri_matching flag from<br>OpenSER and have it all the time RFC-compliant, or keep ruri_matching<br>and re-use the Via branch id from INVITE. What OpenSER users would like
<br>more?<br><br>Cheers,<br>Daniel<br><br><br><br><br>On 02/02/06 17:44, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:<br>> You are right, I missed the branch value. I will investigate further,<br>> at least the initial INVITE transaction is matched, since the R-URI is
<br>> restored. The problem should be in branch id generation.<br>><br>> Cheers,<br>> Daniel<br>><br>><br>> On 02/02/06 15:54, Jose Antonio Garvayo wrote:<br>>> Hello Daniel,<br>>><br>>> Thanks for your response, but I still think there's an error in
<br>>> openser. Let me explain it:<br>>> [...]<br>><br></blockquote></div><br>