Re: [Sip] Process question on fixing record-route

Thomas Froment writes:

 > 1) Do we want to *deprecate* record-route rewriting or just recommend 
 > double R-R but let R-R rewriting as a valid alternative?

can you clarify what you mean by r-r rewriting?  if i recall correctly,
according to rfc 3261 r-r headers are added during dialog initiating
request and after that route set does not change, i.e., proxies only
need to r-r initial request.

 > The URI 
 > SHOULD NOT contain the transport parameter unless the proxy has 
 > knowledge(such as in a private network) that the next downstream element 
 > that will be in the path of subsequent requests supports that
 > transport".

my proxy may be talking to a proxy of another organization using tls no
matter if uri scheme in requests is sip or sips.  if request comes in
over udp and goes out over tls, should my proxy double r-r and add
transport=tls or what?

-- juha

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip