[Serusers] Behaviour of SER with private parameters in request URI

[Jan Janak]

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 at 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 at logical-element.domain' contact 
> 'service at host'
>       |    
>       |
> ---------
> |  UAC  |
> ---------
> 
> 
> 
> 2/ Step 2
> 
> Another UAC tries to reach the previously registered user BUT WITH 
> PRIVATE PARAMETERS in request URI
> 
> ----------
> |  UAC   |
> ----------
>      |
>      |     
> INVITE service at logical-element.domain;param1=value1;param2=value2
>      v
> ---------
> |  SER  |
> ---------
>       |
>       |     INVITE service at host (sol 1)
>       |     or INVITE service at host;param1=value1;param2=value2 (sol 2)
>       v
> ---------
> |  UAC  |
> ---------
> 
> The translation from service at logical-element.domain to service at host is 
> done in SER  using 'lookup'.
> 
> 3/ Problem :
> 
> I observe that SER when translating the user at 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 at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20030313/ec6fae49/attachment.pgp>