[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sip-implementors
Subject:    Re: [Sip-implementors] A question about constructing ACK.
From:       "Bu, Wenfei \(Leo\)" <wbu () alcatel-lucent ! com>
Date:       2007-07-26 5:00:36
Message-ID: D2C03B54F884FA48AA9FF97F76C12F7E529118 () CNEXC1U02 ! bj ! lucent ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

My negligence - 17.1.1.3 is for ACK within transaction. Please ignore my earlier \
email.

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
                [mailto:sip-implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of \
                Bu, Wenfei (Leo)
Sent: 2007Äê7Ô 26ÈÕ 12:21
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] A question about constructing ACK.

All,

 

I don't know whether this has been talked before...

Anyway, I'm confused about the rules for constructing Request-URI of ACK
for 200 OK.

*	Per RFC3261 section 12.2.1.1, if the route set is empty, the UAC
must place the remote target URI into the Request-URI. 
*	However, per RFC3261 section 17.1.1.3, the ACK request
constructed by the client transaction must contain values for Request-
URI that is equal to the original request. 

 

My question is: what if the remote target URI in dialog is different
from the Request-URI in the original request?

Here's the call flow:

UAC               UAS

----------> F1 INVITE
sip:13143800@10.9.8.7:5060;user=phone;transport=udp SIP/2.0

<---------- F2 180 (Contact:
<sip:13143800@10.9.8.7:5060;ue-addr=172.1.1.4;transport=udp>)

<---------- F3 200 (Contact:
<sip:13143800@10.9.8.7:5060;ue-addr=172.1.1.4;transport=udp>)

----------> F4 ACK ??

 

What's your opinion about constructing the Request-URI for ACK?

 

Thanks,

Leo

 

 

_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]