[Users] Angle bracket in Route header coming from Contact and strict router

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Marcello,

looking at the SIP grammar in RFC3261, I would say the angle brackets 
are mandatory:

Record-Route  =  "Record-Route" HCOLON rec-route *(COMMA rec-route)
rec-route     =  name-addr *( SEMI rr-param )

Route        =  "Route" HCOLON route-param *(COMMA route-param)
route-param  =  name-addr *( SEMI rr-param )

where:

name-addr      =  [ display-name ] LAQUOT addr-spec RAQUOT


I think the problem is with the UA converting the Contact to Route hdr - 
it must add brackets.

regards,
bogdan


Marcello Lupo wrote:
> Hi to all,
> little question about populating the Route Header field.
> I'm dealing with 2 CPE of different vendors (Patton and Netsynt) and 
> an Openser in the middle.
> Patton in their SIP is not using angle bracket on SIP From,To and 
> Contact headers.
> Netsynt is using strict routing method to build BYE messages.
> This is causing that when Netsynt is creating the BYE it is putting 
> the proxy IP in the R-URI and the URI of Contact received from 
> previuos packets from patton in the Route header to let it be 
> processed by the proxy.
> In this way the Route header field constructed is without the <> 
> enclosing the uri. Netsynt keep it from previous Contact without any 
> manipulation on it.
> This is causing an error on the proxy parsing the name-addr field of 
> the Route header field and the loose_route() fail. Seems that it is 
> mandatory for Openser to get angle bracket in Route header fields.
> Now in the section 20 of RFC3261 is said that it is not a MUST that 
> From,To and Contact header have to be enclosed in angle bracket.
> So i'm searching in the RFC where is said that if the Contact is 
> without the angle bracket the UAC have to check if the Contact have 
> the <> and if it don't have the <> it have to insert it before to out 
> it on the Route (i searched the RFC2543 too).
> can someone give me clarification on this issue?
> Where is written the Route header field is mandatory to have <> 
> enclosing the URI.
> I'm searching all of this because i have to give a good reason to each 
> vendor (Netsynt and Patton) to modify their sip stack for this issue. 
> I don't know who of the 2 should fix the problem. If Patton to add <> 
> in each request or Netsynt to fix the Route field population.
> Thanks,
> Bye,
> Marcello
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>