2 Jul
2018
2 Jul
'18
7:10 a.m.
Actually no one...
I just confused
So looks like here is an exception from rules for the Route header handling
in case of UAC behaivor...
It was posted only for to be sure that I have right interpretation of this
particular case:
Because of me these 2 descriptions are very opposite
This route
set, even if empty, overrides any pre-existing
route set for future
requests in this dialog. The remote target MUST be set to the URI
from the Contact header field of the response.
2018-07-02 0:05 GMT+03:00 Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com>om>:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 12:03:24AM +0300, Yuriy
Gorlichenko wrote:
Just in continue of the discussion
forund in the RFC3261 12.1.2 (UAC behaivor) this:
The route set MUST be set to the list of URIs in the Record-Route
header field from the response, taken in reverse order and preserving
all URI parameters. If no Record-Route header field is present in
the response, the route set MUST be set to the empty set. This route
set, even if empty, overrides any pre-existing route set for future
requests in this dialog. The remote target MUST be set to the URI
from the Contact header field of the response.
Indeed. What is your intended thesis?
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users