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@evaristesys.com>:
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@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users