rg
Subject: Re: [Sip] Comment on draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05
From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes, if the obfuscating proxy performs the loop checking based on its
own Via.
But if you have *two* obfuscating proxies in the loop then I think it
becomes impossible to
From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes, if the obfuscating proxy performs the loop checking based on its
own Via.
But if you have *two* obfuscating proxies in the loop then I think it
becomes impossible to detect the loop.
In a way, this is similar the a loop that includes
Robert Sparks wrote:
The thing you describe is not a proxy :)
Seriously, we don't put a lot of work into specifying behavior when
things violate the specification.
I'd be willing to add a paragraph of general tone noting that the loop
detection mechanism breaks if you remove other people's
The thing you describe is not a proxy :)
Seriously, we don't put a lot of work into specifying behavior when
things violate the specification.
I'd be willing to add a paragraph of general tone noting that the
loop detection mechanism breaks if you remove other people's vias.
(If there were
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Some proxies hide/suppress/obfuscate via headers, and then reverse the
process on responses. A proxy that does so breaks loop checking by any
of the proxies whose vias it hid. So I think a proxy that does this MUST
From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Some proxies hide/suppress/obfuscate via headers, and then reverse the
process on responses. A proxy that does so breaks loop checking by any
of the proxies whose vias it hid. So I think a proxy that does this MUST
perform a loop check itsel
Just catching up :-(
One thing occurred to me - this document goes out of its way to say that
a proxy need not do the loop check unless it forks. In general that
makes sense, but in one case it does not:
Some proxies hide/suppress/obfuscate via headers, and then reverse the
process on respon
