Re: [Sip-implementors] Is uri case insensitive in WWW/Proxy-Authorization?

2011-03-09 Thread Joegen E. Baclor
On 03/10/2011 11:36 AM, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote: >From the RFC (3261 and 2617) it is unclear for me whether the "uri" > parameter (aka digest-uri) in the WWW-Authorization or > Proxy-Authorization header is case-insensitive or not. For instance, are > URIs uri="sip:user@domain" and uri="sip:USE

Re: [Sip-implementors] Significance of different PAID header inRe-INVITE

2011-03-09 Thread Attila Sipos
I my experience it means that the identity of the connected party has changed. say you have a SIP gateway to some non-SIP network. If a transfer occurs inside the network then the SIP endpoint could become connected to a different user. The SIP UA will update the P-Preferred-Identity from RFC 3

Re: [Sip-implementors] Testing Tool for generating RTP Traffic!

2011-03-09 Thread Keerthi Srinivasan
Hi All, You can try using miTester for SIP for both SIP and RTP message generation.. On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Siga wrote: > Hi everybody, > I need one more information regarding the tool to generate RTP traffic, I > need that to test my routine for receiving RTP packets. I am looking fo

[Sip-implementors] Significance of different PAID header in Re-INVITE

2011-03-09 Thread Jyoti Singhal
Hi All, I need to know is there any significance of a modified PAID header in Re-INVITE. With Regards, Jyoti ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] Is uri case insensitive in WWW/Proxy-Authorization?

2011-03-09 Thread Tarun2 Gupta
Hi Refer RFC 3261 7.3.1 Header Field Format When comparing header fields, field names are always case- insensitive. Unless otherwise stated in the definition of a particular header field, field values, parameter names, and parameter values are case-insensitive. Tokens are always

[Sip-implementors] Is uri case insensitive in WWW/Proxy-Authorization?

2011-03-09 Thread Evgeniy Khramtsov
From the RFC (3261 and 2617) it is unclear for me whether the "uri" parameter (aka digest-uri) in the WWW-Authorization or Proxy-Authorization header is case-insensitive or not. For instance, are URIs uri="sip:user@domain" and uri="sip:USER@domain" equal or not?

Re: [Sip-implementors] Content-Disposition

2011-03-09 Thread Worley, Dale R (Dale)
From: sip-boun...@ietf.org [sip-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Sipos [attila.si...@vegastream.com] Strictly, for an error like that, there should be a "404 Bad Request" response but you might decide it is better to treat it as if it is missing:

Re: [Sip-implementors] Content-Disposition

2011-03-09 Thread Attila Sipos
Strictly, for an error like that, there should be a "404 Bad Request" response but you might decide it is better to treat it as if it is missing: If the Content-Disposition header field is missing, bodies of Content-Type application/sdp imply the disposition "session", while other content

Re: [Sip-implementors] Content-Disposition

2011-03-09 Thread isshed
If this header in initial invite and parsing fails. does the call get connected? On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM, isshed wrote: > does anyone know what the behaviour if parsing of Content-Disposition > header fails. > > Thanks, > HArendra > ___ Sip-imp

[Sip-implementors] Content-Disposition

2011-03-09 Thread isshed
does anyone know what the behaviour if parsing of Content-Disposition header fails. Thanks, HArendra ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread Vijay Tiwari
Hello Nitin Hope you are doing good, sorry i was able to respond that time. i saw are mail and according to my understanding this value can be change if " is increased when a modification is made to the session data." it means that if any session data change between 183 and 200 ok message then

Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread Worley, Dale R (Dale)
From: Worley, Dale R (Dale) If the 183 and the 200 have the same to-tag, and the 183 is sent with PRACK, then the 183 finishes the offer/answer negotiation, and the 200 is allowed to be part of a new offer/answer negotiation. But the details of that are

Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread Worley, Dale R (Dale)
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Nitin Kapoor [nitinkapo...@gmail.com] I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as well as in 200 OK also. As

Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK - Email found in subject

2011-03-09 Thread isshed
hello nitin,, you can not increase session version. session version can only be incremented. as per RFC 4566 " is a version number for this session description. Its usage is up to the creating tool, so long as is increased when a modification is made to the session data. Again, it is RECOMMENDED

Re: [Sip-implementors] Audio Port problem (Pranav)

2011-03-09 Thread Pranav Damele
Hi Siga, Yes, it is absolutely fine if you send RTP from 5060. But just a suggestion try NOT to use standard SIP port. Maybe you can use a port range of 5 to 54000 for RTP keeping in mind that an RTP port should be even and the RTCP port is the next higher odd port number. >Hi Dale, >thank yo

Re: [Sip-implementors] is host name case sensitive in IMS server??

2011-03-09 Thread Bob Penfield
The URI host name is case-insensitive. ATLANTA.COM and atlanta.com are the same host. >From RFC 3261: Comparison of the userinfo of SIP and SIPS URIs is case- sensitive. This includes userinfo containing passwords or formatted as telephone-subscribers. Comparison of all other

Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread Bob Penfield
You cannot use scenario 4 and scenario 2 in the same INVITE. Scenario 2 can only be used as the initial offer/answer (for a new session) or for an established session (i.e. a re-INVITE). There can be only one offer/answer in a single INVITE transaction. There can be a second offer/answer exchang

Re: [Sip-implementors] is host name case sensitive in IMS server??

2011-03-09 Thread Attila Sipos
>> As you say, URI host name is case-insensitive. sorry, URI host name is NOT case-insensitive. regards Attila -Original Message- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Attila Sipos Sent: 09 March 2011 14:

Re: [Sip-implementors] is host name case sensitive in IMS server??

2011-03-09 Thread Attila Sipos
I think it's a bug. As you say, URI host name is case-insensitive. (most of SIP is case-insensitive - there are exceptions like display-name or RFC4916's Identity header) Regards Attila From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implemen

Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread Attila Sipos
There is a draft which tries to clarify what is legal. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-13 OfferAnswer RFCIni Est Early --- 1. INVITE Req. 2x

[Sip-implementors] is host name case sensitive in IMS server??

2011-03-09 Thread rekha
Hi all, I registered with   al...@open-ims.test. When I tried to call to al...@open-ims.test, server responded with 404 Not found. But RFC 3261 specifies that in the URI host name is case insensitive. Why server responds with 404? with Regards Rekha <>__

[Sip-implementors] RTCP with 7 Sources - is this per RFC?

2011-03-09 Thread Albert Rodriguez
Hello Sip Implementors, I am in need of an RTCP Guru. My SBC is sending out an RTCP Seder Report with "7" Source IPs and a frame size of 1088. Apparently they are claiming that this RTCP packet is causing their high density GW (Multiple TDM DS3's) to fail. I have consulted with several subject

Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 &200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread Nitin Kapoor
Hi Sanjiv, I do agree that "session-version" should increment by one from the previous SDP when there is any modification is involved in SDP. But i haven't seen any modification into the SDP of 183 & 200 OK/ Also, there was no SDP in ACK. If you need i can share the traces with you. Thanks, Niti

Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread ashok kumar
Hi Nitin, I did not get to know the complete call flow which you are trying to do. However, there could be two possibilities: 1> 183 Session Progress is reliable provisional response (PRACK procedure) If this is the case then the 200 OK from the termination contains the new offer in your case bec

Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread Attila Sipos
> 183 as well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP > in 183 session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. I agree 100%. Unless the 200 OK was on a different "fork" (i.e. different To tag) then the SDP of the 200 OK should be ignored. The SDP should not be chang

Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 &200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread Jaiswal, Sanjiv (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
Hi Nitin, Every SDP with incremented session ( in this case 200 OK) is treated as new negotiation(offer). Whether ACK from other end contains SDP answer? If yes then session version is incremented there also? Regards Sanjiv -Original Message- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.col

Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK

2011-03-09 Thread Nitin Kapoor
Hello Ashish, Here is the mline for both the messages. 183: Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18 200 OK: Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18 Thanks, Nitin Kapoor On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ashish Saxena wrote: > what is the mline