10 Dec
2009
10 Dec
'09
7:08 p.m.
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
El Jueves, 10 de Diciembre de 2009, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla escribió:
Thanks for that background info.
Personally I don't care which way it goes, as long as its documented.
So that google will find this next time:
FWIW... Kamailio 1.5.3 follows 3261 21.5.4, even if it is confusing[1].
But [2] mentions that OpenSER 1.1.x was "RFC 3263" compliant - which
treats Retry-After as informational in section 4.3.
-----
[1]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2006-April/012532.…
[2] http://www.kamailio.org/mos/view/OpenSER-v1.1.x-Release-Notes/
does the 503 reply include a retry-after header?
Does Kamailio behaviour depends on that header? If so IMHO it's not correct.
I've joined long discussions in sip-implementors about 503 with/without
Retry-After header. Some people think that a 503 without this header must be
considered as a 500. But after discussions this assumption is not correct and
a 503 must be considered similary even if it doesn't contain this header.
BTW RFC 3263 (Locating SIP Servers) says nothing about 500 error, neither
about Retry-After header in 503 replies. It considers a 503 with/without
Retry-After in same way.
IMHO Kamailio/SR should consider Retry-After just as informative but never
change the routing/failover behavior based on it.
Regards.