Thanks,Castillo,
I mean "How does SIP ensure the reasonability of a request forwarding?".
For example:
Alice->Atlanta->Biloxi->Dallas->Dave
In that sequence,
how does SIP ensure the authenticity of Biloxi that is a forwarder?
Moreover,
how does SIP ensure the reasonability, as an incoming prox
Here is an alternative possibility:
Let us consider the putative URI .
In a perfect world, this would be a valid SIP URI. And the definition of SIP
URI could be extended to allow this. But it is not allowed by RFC 3261, and
probably breaks a lot of SIP software out there, though updating the
2011/2/11 Brett Tate :
> The draft also discusses using ".invalid"; however as I mentioned within the
> following link, I not sure if that it is really formatted as a valid FQND.
For sure ".invalid" is not a valid FQND.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
___
Sip
On 2/11/2011 7:26 AM, Brett Tate wrote:
> Draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07 section 4.1 imposes some offer/answer
> restrictions which prevents answering IPv6 with IPv4.
OK. I wasn't very familiar with that one.
Thanks,
Paul
> The draft also discusses using ".invalid"; howev
Thanks for the response. Reply is inline.
> 2011/2/14 Brett Tate :
> > RFC 4916 section 4.4.1 mandates how to populate subsequent
> > requests within dialog; however I didn't find much detail
> > within the RFC concerning building CANCEL, non-2xx ACK,
> > and responses. I assume that the lack
15 feb 2011 kl. 11.17 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
> 2011/2/15 Olle E. Johansson :
>> Yes that was my conclusion as well. In the beginnning, I fell into the same
>> trap as Dale, reading that SIP is Unicode. But there are many unclear areas
>> and I think we need to document more clearly which par
Hi,
Requesting you to clarify the below query.
Can server (i.e. S-CSCF) send 200 OK for REGISTER if the registered
identity(i.e. TO URI) is barred and there is no associated URIs?
i.e.: 200 OK with empty value in P-Associated-URI header.
If yes, what should be the client (UE) behavior as
2011/2/15 Olle E. Johansson :
> Yes that was my conclusion as well. In the beginnning, I fell into the same
> trap as Dale, reading that SIP is Unicode. But there are many unclear areas
> and I think we need to document more clearly which parts that really is
> Unicode.
RFC3261 BNF allows UTF-8
15 feb 2011 kl. 09.20 skrev Saúl Ibarra Corretgé:
>> Does the ABNF for SIP uri's really support this?
>>
>
> AFAIS not:
>
> hostport = host [ ":" port ]
> host = hostname / IPv4address / IPv6reference
> hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ]
> domainlab
2011/2/15 Iñaki Baz Castillo :
> 2011/2/15 Olle E. Johansson :
>>> I agree. Escaped version should exist just in the points of
>>> communication in which such escaping is required.
>>>
>> Does the ABNF for SIP uri's really support this?
>
> I meant the username part which can be hex encoded.
So if
2011/2/15 Olle E. Johansson :
>> I agree. Escaped version should exist just in the points of
>> communication in which such escaping is required.
>>
> Does the ABNF for SIP uri's really support this?
I meant the username part which can be hex encoded.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
> Does the ABNF for SIP uri's really support this?
>
AFAIS not:
hostport = host [ ":" port ]
host = hostname / IPv4address / IPv6reference
hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ]
domainlabel = alphanum
/ alphanum *( alphanum / "-"
12 matches
Mail list logo
