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

[Yuriy Gorlichenko]

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 at 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 at lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20180702/46c45821/attachment.html>