Re: [SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

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 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 >

_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users