On 7/25/12 10:50 AM, fuliang yuan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Record route is normally added in Request.
> I have encountered a weird case that INVITE from my sip device did not have
> Record-Route, but the response of 180 and 200 have Record-Route. I could
> not find if it is legit to add Record-Route in response from RFC 3261.
You don't say if there are intermediate nodes (proxy or b2bua) between
the UAC and UAS.
It would be normal for the UAC to *not* include a Record-Route. Rather,
its proxies (or perhaps other intermediaries) that want to stay on the
signaling path that will insert Record-Route. Then the UAS will echo
what it receives in the response. So from the perspective of the UAC, it
will look as you describe.
Based on a quick look, and memory, I don't think 3261 says anything, pro
or con, about the UAS adding values to the R-R. IMO there is no reason
why it couldn't if it has a reason to. (A proxy is permitted to insert a
R-R value with a URI identifying some node other than itself. If that is
ok then it makes sense to permit the UAS to do so also.) If necessary,
the UAS can consider itself as a stateless proxy that adds to R-R and
then forwards the request on to itself.
Thanks,
Paul
> INVITE without Record-Route ------------------>
> <----------------- 183 with
> Record-Route
> <----------------- 200 with
> Record-Route
>
> Please let me know if it is legit to add Record-Route in response?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
> Frank
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
