On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> Does anybody know in which RFC a=encryption SDP attribute is defined? I see
> this attribute used in association with SRTP or RTP encryption, but I cannot
> find the standard or a draft that defined it.
Do you mean a=crypto? RFC 4568?
_
The problem was that particular server wants the authorization header
eventhough the nonce does not change.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Pavesi, Valdemar (NSN - US/Irving) <
valdemar.pav...@nsn.com> wrote:
>
> Then you just don't send the auhentication header for the subsequent
> REQUESTS.
>
> but for 'Route' header, "sachinr.com" in my case, where
> I am sending Invite to "sachinr.com" on TCP but mentioning
> "transport=udp" in route header. is that correct ?
It is acceptable. As mentioned, rfc3261 does not require the Route entry's
explicit transport to change when switching fro
Does anybody know in which RFC a=encryption SDP attribute is defined? I see
this attribute used in association with SRTP or RTP encryption, but I cannot
find the standard or a draft that defined it.
_
Roman Shpount
___
Sip-implementors mailing
Then you just don't send the auhentication header for the subsequent
REQUESTS.
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of ext
Wyne Wolf
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:37 AM
To: Worley
Got it working. Implemented both ways. That particular server allows the
original nonce to be used for a very very long time.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale)
wrote:
>
> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [
> sip-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Kevin P. Fleming
[kpflem...@digium.com]
Please try sending a BYE without any Authorization header, then waiting
for the 401 response, then r
yes , looks like you are trying to bypass the nonce and this way
bypass the authentication ?
The nonce for INVITE was created maybe like : TIME_STAMP+ BLABLA+
INVITE + RANDON + ... ( and with expiration timer like 5 minutes)
Wolf my response for your first question was just how to build the
On 01/25/2011 09:24 AM, Wyne Wolf wrote:
> I have changed the cnone, nonce, nc and re-compute the header in the
> "BYE" request. So it is not the same.
(top-posting to keep the flow together)
That's not possible; you can't know what the new nonce will be until you
receive the 401 response to the
Of course, any request can be challenged and the UA must be prepared to re-send
it using the nonce, etc. provided in the authentication challenge. A common
reason for challenges is that the nonce one has used in the request is no
longer considered valid by the UAS; the UAS will provide a new no
Hi Kevin,
I have changed the cnone, nonce, nc and re-compute the header in the "BYE"
request. So it is not the same.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 09:08 AM, Wyne Wolf wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am getting an "Unauthorized" on the "BYE" method with one p
In reallity all REQUEST will be challenged.
If BYE will be send after your nonce-expiration-timer then a new
challenge must be done.
BYE --->
< 401 Unauthorized
BYE with auth --->
< 200ok
The same for PRACK ,UPDATE ...
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...
On 01/25/2011 09:08 AM, Wyne Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am getting an "Unauthorized" on the "BYE" method with one particular
> service. Can anyone take a look at the trace for me? I have triple checked
> the authorization string and it is correct. Thanks.
>
> --
Hi,
I am getting an "Unauthorized" on the "BYE" method with one particular
service. Can anyone take a look at the trace for me? I have triple checked
the authorization string and it is correct. Thanks.
---
Yes. You are correct. If you are doing your own scheme, you can change it.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Pavesi, Valdemar (NSN - US/Irving) <
valdemar.pav...@nsn.com> wrote:
> yes, for me the secret is equal UserMD5.
>
> --
> *From:* ext Wyne Wolf [mailto:si
yes, for me the secret is equal UserMD5.
From: ext Wyne Wolf [mailto:sip@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:03 PM
To: Pavesi, Valdemar (NSN - US/Irving)
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] What parameter chan
Brett,
Thanks for reply. I have exactly the same scenario which you have explained.
For 'Contact', transport parameter can be different as it for future
requests,
but for 'Route' header, "sachinr.com" in my case, where I am sending Invite
to "sachinr.com" on TCP but mentioning "transport=udp" in
> Hi all,
>
> I have a probleme understanding the following sentence RFC 3261 regarding H
> and B Timers in section 17.2.1.
>
> Timer H determines when the server transaction abandons retransmitting the
> response. Its value is chosen to equal Timer B, the amount of time a client
> transacti
> 1. Is it correct to add "transport=UDP" parameter in
> 'Contact' and 'Route' header while 'Via' contains
> transport protocol as TCP ?
The transport used to send the request must be reflected within the Via. An
explicit transport within a Contact and Route can be different from the
transpor
Hi All,
Requesting you to clarify the below query.
As 'authentication with integrity' is not applicable for SIP (as per
33.203), Can SIP server add 'auth-int' in qop of WWW-Authenticate header?
If SIP server can add auth-int in qop, what is 'entity body which is not a
message body' mentioned
Hi All,
I have a query with respect to value of "transport=" parameter in Contact &
Route header.The following Invite is going out from UA to Proxy "sachinr.com"
over TCP.
===
INVITE sip:720...@sachinr.com
;user=dialstrin
21 matches
Mail list logo
