2015-05-21 16:47 GMT+02:00 Roman Shpount :
>> Yes, but how to make that compile with SIP routing rules?
>> And why "WSS"? same applies to SIP over TLS.
>>
>
> The local policy can (and often does) overwrite SIP routing rules. The main
> reason for this routing policy in WS SIP client is due to this
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2015-05-21 16:37 GMT+02:00 Roman Shpount :
> > In general, some sort of language that in practical deployments client
> would
> > typically use a local policy to send all the SIP messages through a
> > pre-configured WSS proxy would ma
2015-05-21 16:37 GMT+02:00 Roman Shpount :
> In general, some sort of language that in practical deployments client would
> typically use a local policy to send all the SIP messages through a
> pre-configured WSS proxy would make a lot of sense.
Yes, but how to make that compile with SIP routing r
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2015-05-20 23:13 GMT+02:00 Roman Shpount :
> > I think RFC 7118 example 8.2 is missing that language that WSS is used
> based
> > on the local client policy. This would make the entire example correct
> and
> > compliant with RFC 3621.
2015-05-20 23:13 GMT+02:00 Roman Shpount :
> I think RFC 7118 example 8.2 is missing that language that WSS is used based
> on the local client policy. This would make the entire example correct and
> compliant with RFC 3621. From my point of view this is more of an editorial
> nit, then the actual
