Re: [Sip-implementors] PRACK Message

2011-09-09 Thread prakash k
Hi Salil Please rules of Offer answer. The rules for sending offers: - offer may be sent in INVITE - if there was no offer in INVITE, offer MUST be sent in first reliable response to INVITE - offer may be sent in 100rel (reliable 1XX series response) - offer may be sent in PRACK

[Sip-implementors] Record Route header processing for unreliable 18x response at UAC end

2011-09-09 Thread Abhishek Sahu
Hello All I've one query regarding behavior of Record-Route. If Record-Route is present in SIP unreliable 18x response and UPDATE needs to be sent prior to receiving of 2xx response. So should the Route header for the UPDATE request be updated according to the Record-Route of 18x response? In

Re: [Sip-implementors] Record Route header processing for unreliable 18x response at UAC end

2011-09-09 Thread Shanbhag, Somesh (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
Hi Abhishek, Yes. Since the UPDATE is typically done to alter the SDP details in case of early dialog, there might be a stateful-proxy (may be B2BUA) in between which would want the SDP to be modified and sent forward. So, its better to include the Route header in the UPDATE request if you

Re: [Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id

2011-09-09 Thread Brett Tate
I have the following scenario: Incoming invite has Privacy:id along From header carrying Display Name Where as the outgoing INVITE has From Header set sip:Anonymous@Anonymous.invalid whereas the display-name goes as it is. Is there any draft mentioning about this behavior

Re: [Sip-implementors] Cannot register with server

2011-09-09 Thread Wyne Wolf
Hi Tarun, I don't think that's the case. When I compare the message from a GrandStream, they are almost no difference and the GrandStream phone was able to register with the server. I also know the response is calculated correctly. Here is the log from the GrandStream phone REGISTER

Re: [Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id

2011-09-09 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 9/9/11 1:27 AM, prakash k wrote: Hi All, I have the following scenario: Incoming invite has Privacy:id along From header carrying Display Name Where as the outgoing INVITE has From Header set sip:Anonymous@Anonymous.invalid whereas the display-name goes as it is. Is there any draft

Re: [Sip-implementors] Record Route header processing for unreliable 18x response at UAC end

2011-09-09 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 9/9/11 2:56 AM, Abhishek Sahu wrote: Hello All I've one query regarding behavior of Record-Route. If Record-Route is present in SIP unreliable 18x response and UPDATE needs to be sent prior to receiving of 2xx response. So should the Route header for the UPDATE request be updated

Re: [Sip-implementors] Cannot register with server

2011-09-09 Thread Pavesi, Valdemar (NSN - US/Irving)
Is the username/password correct ? if header Authorization is not correct the server will keep sending the challenge up to a limit (like 50 times) To avoid loop. After reach the maximum you must see 403 instead 401. -Original Message- From:

Re: [Sip-implementors] Cannot register with server

2011-09-09 Thread Wyne Wolf
Yes. The user name and password are both correct. On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Pavesi, Valdemar (NSN - US/Irving) valdemar.pav...@nsn.com wrote: Is the username/password correct ? if header Authorization is not correct the server will keep sending the challenge up to a limit (like 50

Re: [Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id

2011-09-09 Thread Vivek Talwar
Hi, Refer Privacy RFC 3323 for privacy. In incoming INVITE , the privacy value should not be there and this value should be removed by any application server hosting privacy services and headers should be modified accordingly. Thanks and Regards, Vivek Talwar

Re: [Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id

2011-09-09 Thread Vivek Talwar
Hi Prakash, What I see from logs is: 1. The user agent is itself implementing the privacy service. In outgoing INVITE the the privacy field is not present and From header is anonymous. 2. In incoming INVITE, the Privacy value is present and From is anonymous means privacy

Re: [Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id

2011-09-09 Thread Vivek Talwar
Hi Prakash, So this means SBC is implementing privacy services as well due to which it removed privacy header and modified From header. In case no SBC is in between you are receiving INVITE as it is. Thanks and Regards, Vivek Talwar From: prakash k

Re: [Sip-implementors] Record Route header processing for unreliable 18x response at UAC end

2011-09-09 Thread Vivek Talwar
Hi Abhishek, Yes the UPDATE will be sent as per Record-Route received in 18x response. Thanks and Regards, Vivek Talwar From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of

Re: [Sip-implementors] Cannot register with server

2011-09-09 Thread Wyne Wolf
Never mind guys. The server is locking the account to the IP address the account was first used. I guess it was for security reasons. Thanks again. On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Wyne Wolf sip@gmail.com wrote: Yes. The user name and password are both correct. On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at

Re: [Sip-implementors] Cannot register with server

2011-09-09 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 9/9/11 11:11 AM, Wyne Wolf wrote: Never mind guys. The server is locking the account to the IP address the account was first used. I guess it was for security reasons. Thanks again. Great! This server really doesn't get how SIP is supposed to work, and what the point of registration is. If