Hello David,
The spec doesn't say anything about how a new Request-URI should be constructed for requests being forwarded.
SER simply replaces Request-URI with contact registered by user and forwards it, that's not a bug, that was intentional. The new Request-URI is a completely new one so it imho makes no sense to copy some parameters from the old one (this may potentially lead to a conflict).
You can add another header field or use the body if you need to pass some information to the other side. Request-URI is not very good place for such data because it will be rewritten in each proxy along the path.
regards, Jan.
On 13-03 18:01, David.Rio@alcatel.fr wrote:
Hello all
I am using SER as a proxy server. Please let's consider the following scenario
1/ Step 1
A UAC registers to SER
| SER |
^ | REGISTER for 'service@logical-element.domain' contact'service@host' | |
| UAC |
2/ Step 2
Another UAC tries to reach the previously registered user BUT WITH PRIVATE PARAMETERS in request URI
| UAC |
| |INVITE service@logical-element.domain;param1=value1;param2=value2 v
| SER |
| | INVITE service@host (sol 1) | or INVITE service@host;param1=value1;param2=value2 (sol 2) v
| UAC |
The translation from service@logical-element.domain to service@host is done in SER using 'lookup'.
3/ Problem :
I observe that SER when translating the user@host part of the request URI does not recopy the private parameters, what I expected it to do.
=> I can not find any clear position in RFC 3261 (from my understanding of the RFC). Is it a bug in SER or does SER really implement the behaviour a standard SIP proxy should have ?
Thanks for your answers
-- David Rio Alcatel CIT - Rennes ASD France 33 2 99 87 47 18
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers