Re: [SFTF] Case 604c
Hi Ramesh,
this seems to be the wrong log. At least the log is from test case 603s, which
tests for correct loose routing. But from the subject you were complaining
about 604c, which tests strict routing.
Anyway, in the attached log your UA fails the test because it did not inverted
the chain of the proxies from the Record-Route header. In fact I wonder how
the BYE has reached the test tool, because according to the Route header in
the BYE, the UA would have had send this request to proxy01.example.com.
I hope this clears you issues a little bit. If you still have any questions or
problems, dont hesitate to drop me a line.
Regards
Nils
On Friday 03 December 2004 17:53, Ramesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> Hi all,
> Here is the capture for the error.
>
> cheers
> Ramesh
>
> Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
> >Hi Ramesh,
> >
> >without seeing the Record-Route and the Route it is impossible to judge.
> > When you post a SIP trace of the test someone should be able to help you
> > to identify the problem.
> >
> >Regards
> > Nils
> >
> >On Thursday 02 December 2004 17:24, Ramesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >> I think there is an error in this when it compares the Record-Route
> >>sent in INVITE with the Route sent in BYE. In sectiuon12.1.2 Paragraph 3
> >>it states that the Route set should be in the reverse order or the
> >>Record-Route. When I send the route in the reverse order the test case
> >>calls it a failure. Am I reading the RFC wrong or is this an error in
> >>the test case?
> >>
> >>Cheers
> >>Ramesh
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>sftf-dev mailing list
> >>sftf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sftf-dev
> >>Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sftf-dev/
