Re: [Sip-implementors] 401 Unauthorized with Require Header?

[Dale R. Worley]

I'm almost certain that what you want is the mechanism Olle described,
that if the registrar supports the feature, then it it sends "Supported:
xxx" in the response to the REGISTER, and the CPE (UAC) determines
whether to activate the feature based on the presence or absence of
"xxx".

It might help if you describe what the feature is.  Depending on the
feature, there may be better places in the logic to decide whether it is
active that at the moment of registration.

Dale
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] 401 Unauthorized with Require Header?

[Sreekanth]

I just thought about it a bit more and Dale is right. I believe the *Require
*header should be enough. The REGISTER can be sent to the Registrar server
from UAC with the Require header containing the feature name. If the
Registrar server supports this, it will respond with a 401. Otherwise the
UAS/Registrar server will respond with the 420 or 400 response, as Dale
mentioned earlier. So we do not need the Require header to be a part of the
401 as well.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 20:18, Olle E. Johansson  wrote:

>
>
> > On 16 Aug 2018, at 16:44, Paul Kyzivat  wrote:
> >
> > On 8/16/18 1:21 AM, Sreekanth wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 08:31, Dale R. Worley 
> wrote:
> >>> Sreekanth  writes:
>  I am going through the SIP RFC (3261) and couldn't find anything
> >>> specified
>  regarding the 401 Unauthorized challenge response from the UAS side
> >>> during
>  a registration.
> 
>  I wanted to confirm whether it is okay to add a *Require *header into
> >>> this
>  401 Unauthorized message response.
> >>>
> >>> What would be the point?  The concept of a Require header is "the UAS
> is
> >>> required to reject the request (420) if it doesn't understand the
> >>> option-tag".  If a *response* had a Require header, either the UAC
> >>> understands the option-tag and processes the response as normal, or it
> >>> doesn't understand the option-tag ... and then what does it do?  It
> >>> can't send a 420 response *to a response*.
> >>>
> >>> Dale
> >>>
> >> Dale, I'm trying to add a new feature in the existing REGISTER framework
> >> and the CPE will determine whether or not this new feature should get
> >> activated based on the 401 response from the Registrar server. If the
> >> Registrar server includes the Require header in the 401 response, then
> the
> >> CPE knows that this feature is supported by the Registrar.
> >
> > It would helpful for you to lay out the scenario you have in mind for
> this new feature.
> >
>
> Aren’t you looking for the Supported header?
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-8.1.1.9 <
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-8.1.1.9>
>
> /O
>
> ___
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] 401 Unauthorized with Require Header?

[Olle E. Johansson]

> On 16 Aug 2018, at 16:44, Paul Kyzivat  wrote:
> 
> On 8/16/18 1:21 AM, Sreekanth wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 08:31, Dale R. Worley  wrote:
>>> Sreekanth  writes:
 I am going through the SIP RFC (3261) and couldn't find anything
>>> specified
 regarding the 401 Unauthorized challenge response from the UAS side
>>> during
 a registration.
 
 I wanted to confirm whether it is okay to add a *Require *header into
>>> this
 401 Unauthorized message response.
>>> 
>>> What would be the point?  The concept of a Require header is "the UAS is
>>> required to reject the request (420) if it doesn't understand the
>>> option-tag".  If a *response* had a Require header, either the UAC
>>> understands the option-tag and processes the response as normal, or it
>>> doesn't understand the option-tag ... and then what does it do?  It
>>> can't send a 420 response *to a response*.
>>> 
>>> Dale
>>> 
>> Dale, I'm trying to add a new feature in the existing REGISTER framework
>> and the CPE will determine whether or not this new feature should get
>> activated based on the 401 response from the Registrar server. If the
>> Registrar server includes the Require header in the 401 response, then the
>> CPE knows that this feature is supported by the Registrar.
> 
> It would helpful for you to lay out the scenario you have in mind for this 
> new feature.
> 

Aren’t you looking for the Supported header?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-8.1.1.9 


/O

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

Re: [Sip-implementors] 401 Unauthorized with Require Header?

[Paul Kyzivat]

On 8/16/18 1:21 AM, Sreekanth wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 08:31, Dale R. Worley  wrote:


Sreekanth  writes:

I am going through the SIP RFC (3261) and couldn't find anything

specified

regarding the 401 Unauthorized challenge response from the UAS side

during

a registration.

I wanted to confirm whether it is okay to add a *Require *header into

this

401 Unauthorized message response.


What would be the point?  The concept of a Require header is "the UAS is
required to reject the request (420) if it doesn't understand the
option-tag".  If a *response* had a Require header, either the UAC
understands the option-tag and processes the response as normal, or it
doesn't understand the option-tag ... and then what does it do?  It
can't send a 420 response *to a response*.

Dale



Dale, I'm trying to add a new feature in the existing REGISTER framework
and the CPE will determine whether or not this new feature should get
activated based on the 401 response from the Registrar server. If the
Registrar server includes the Require header in the 401 response, then the
CPE knows that this feature is supported by the Registrar.


It would helpful for you to lay out the scenario you have in mind for 
this new feature.


Thanks,
Paul
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] 401 Unauthorized with Require Header?

[Sreekanth]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 08:31, Dale R. Worley  wrote:

> Sreekanth  writes:
> > I am going through the SIP RFC (3261) and couldn't find anything
> specified
> > regarding the 401 Unauthorized challenge response from the UAS side
> during
> > a registration.
> >
> > I wanted to confirm whether it is okay to add a *Require *header into
> this
> > 401 Unauthorized message response.
>
> What would be the point?  The concept of a Require header is "the UAS is
> required to reject the request (420) if it doesn't understand the
> option-tag".  If a *response* had a Require header, either the UAC
> understands the option-tag and processes the response as normal, or it
> doesn't understand the option-tag ... and then what does it do?  It
> can't send a 420 response *to a response*.
>
> Dale
>

Dale, I'm trying to add a new feature in the existing REGISTER framework
and the CPE will determine whether or not this new feature should get
activated based on the 401 response from the Registrar server. If the
Registrar server includes the Require header in the 401 response, then the
CPE knows that this feature is supported by the Registrar.

Currently, the Registrar does not need to respond to the REGISTER message
with a 420 because of this:
As per Section 10.3 Point 2, the Registrar MUST process the Require header
field values as described in Section 8.2.2, which indicates that if there
is an unsupported value/extension, the Registrar should ignore that and
continue processing the message.
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] 401 Unauthorized with Require Header?

[Dale R. Worley]

Sreekanth  writes:
> I am going through the SIP RFC (3261) and couldn't find anything specified
> regarding the 401 Unauthorized challenge response from the UAS side during
> a registration.
>
> I wanted to confirm whether it is okay to add a *Require *header into this
> 401 Unauthorized message response.

What would be the point?  The concept of a Require header is "the UAS is
required to reject the request (420) if it doesn't understand the
option-tag".  If a *response* had a Require header, either the UAC
understands the option-tag and processes the response as normal, or it
doesn't understand the option-tag ... and then what does it do?  It
can't send a 420 response *to a response*.

Dale
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

[Sip-implementors] 401 Unauthorized with Require Header?

[Sreekanth]

Hi All,

I am going through the SIP RFC (3261) and couldn't find anything specified
regarding the 401 Unauthorized challenge response from the UAS side during
a registration.

I wanted to confirm whether it is okay to add a *Require *header into this
401 Unauthorized message response.

Regards
Sreekanth
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors