Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header URI comaprision

Hi Paul, Thanks now it's clear my idea about the behaviour. You are true on your feedback. BR/// Rakesh Kumar Mohanty On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > On 7/18/17 4:00 AM, Rakesh wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> Thanks for the update. >> >> So the 200OK in step 4 Registrar sh

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header URI comaprision

On 7/18/17 4:00 AM, Rakesh wrote: Hi Paul, Thanks for the update. So the 200OK in step 4 Registrar should respond with only one contact header Contact: "":3694;transport=udp;Hpt=8ea2_16;ssn;TRC=-;srti=s1_2>;expires=7200 ? Yes. But sinc

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header URI comaprision

Hi Paul, Thanks for the update. So the 200OK in step 4 Registrar should respond with only one contact header Contact: "":3 694;transport=udp;Hpt=8ea2_16;ssn;TRC=-;srti=s1_2>;expires=7200 ? But since there is a difference in contact so it has to be overwritten with the previous c

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header URI comaprision

On 7/17/17 11:08 AM, Rakesh wrote: Hi Expert, Now I got the full picture for the problem. SIP Registrar behavior for the URI contact matching 1) REGISTER request with belwo contact send to Registrar Contact: "";expires=7200 2) Registrar sent 200OK with below contact Contact: "";expires=

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header URI comaprision

Hi Expert, Now I got the full picture for the problem. SIP Registrar behavior for the URI contact matching 1) REGISTER request with belwo contact send to Registrar Contact: "";expires=7200 2) Registrar sent 200OK with below contact Contact: "";expires=7200 3) Now there is another REGISTER r

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header URI comaprision

Hi Expert, I found the problem. Thanks for making comment on my request. BR/// Rakesh Kumar Mohanty On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > Paul Kyzivat writes: > >> Contact: "" > >> > >> Contact: "" > >> ssn;srti=s1_2;TRC=-> > > > > What leads you to this

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header URI comaprision

Paul Kyzivat writes: >> Contact: "" >> >> Contact: "" >> > > What leads you to this conclusion? Parameter order is never relevant. Specifically, a little earlier in section 19.1.4 is: o The ordering of parameters and header fields is not significant in comparing SIP and SIPS

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header URI comaprision

On 7/14/17 3:53 AM, Rakesh wrote: Hi Expert, I am facing an issue on which the contact URI comparison has happened and it fails due to the TRC parameter not in order which I guess so far. Contact: "" Contact: "" I saw in RFC 3261 19.1.4 URI Comparison URI uri-parameter components are c

[Sip-implementors] Contact header URI comaprision

Hi Expert, I am facing an issue on which the contact URI comparison has happened and it fails due to the TRC parameter not in order which I guess so far. Contact: "" Contact: "" I saw in RFC 3261 19.1.4 URI Comparison URI uri-parameter components are compared as follows: - Any uri-

[Sip-implementors] Contact Header Format

Dear All, I am facing the problem where My switch is unable to forward the 183 w/SDP which i am receiving from my vendor. When i checked the traces i noticed as below which i never the patter in CONTACT header and niether i can found any document. Can you please help me to understand if this is t

Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header.

On 6/11/13 9:52 AM, Johan DE CLERCQ wrote: > Scenario : > > uas registers to generic proxy (next hop). > > As we all know, when the uas sends a register to a proxy the register request > will have a contact header. > Upon the proxy returning 200 OK, does this 200 OK needs to have the same > cont

[Sip-implementors] contact header.

Scenario : uas registers to generic proxy (next hop). As we all know, when the uas sends a register to a proxy the register request will have a contact header. Upon the proxy returning 200 OK, does this 200 OK needs to have the same contact header ? Cheers, Johan.

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact Header!!

> Can we have something like below ? > > Contact: *;q=0.2 No; as indicated within RFC 3261's Contact ABNF, parameters are not allowed when STAR is used. Contact = ("Contact" / "m" ) HCOLON ( STAR / (contact-param *(COMMA contact-param))) _

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact Header!!

: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact Header!! Hello, On 2013-04-12 11:06, Kumar, Puneet (Puneet) wrote: > Hi All, > > As per the RFC, grammar for Contact header is: > > Contact= ("Contact" / "m" ) HCOLON >

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact Header!!

Hello, On 2013-04-12 11:06, Kumar, Puneet (Puneet) wrote: > Hi All, > > As per the RFC, grammar for Contact header is: > > Contact= ("Contact" / "m" ) HCOLON >( STAR / (contact-param *(COMMA contact-param))) > > What is the utility of this "STAR" ? > > Can you provide

[Sip-implementors] Contact Header!!

Hi All, As per the RFC, grammar for Contact header is: Contact= ("Contact" / "m" ) HCOLON ( STAR / (contact-param *(COMMA contact-param))) What is the utility of this "STAR" ? Can you provide an example Contact header which shows this "STAR" ? Thanks, Puneet ___

Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo To: Paul Kyzivat Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sent: Wed, 21 April, 2010 9:56:17 PM Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme 2010/4/21 Paul Kyzivat : > Rather that considering it "hyper-exotic and unfeasible", you could just >

Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme

2010/4/21 Paul Kyzivat : > Rather that considering it "hyper-exotic and unfeasible", you could just > consider it "forward looking". Yes, I understant. However under my experience "forward looking" features of IETF are "hyper-exotic and unfeasible" features in the real world. Let's wait 10 years t

Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme

Iñaki, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2010/4/20 Brett Tate : >> section 5.1.1.1: >> " If all the Contact header fields in a REGISTER request are SIPS, the >> UAC MUST use SIPS AORs in the From and To header fields in the >> REGISTER request. If at least one of the Contact header fields is >>

Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme

s. > -Original Message- > From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:i...@aliax.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 6:30 PM > To: Brett Tate > Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme > > 2010/4/20 Brett Tate : &g

Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme

2010/4/20 Brett Tate : > section 5.1.1.1: > "  If all the Contact header fields in a REGISTER request are SIPS, the >   UAC MUST use SIPS AORs in the From and To header fields in the >   REGISTER request.  If at least one of the Contact header fields is >   not SIPS (e.g., sip, mailto, tel, http, h

Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme

.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of chozhan A > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 7:15 AM > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme > > Hi All, > > Sec 8.1.1.8 of RFC 3261 says if the nexhop of the request is SIPS then > the contac

[Sip-implementors] contact header scheme

Hi All, Sec 8.1.1.8 of RFC 3261 says if the nexhop of the request is SIPS then the contact should be SIPS. Does this rule apply to all kinds of request. In particular does this apply to REGISTER request. I believe it is strictly applicable to dialog initiating request and ingeneral all kinds of

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact Header when passing through a proxy

Manoj Priyankara [TG] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:45 PM To: Keerthi Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact Header when passing through a proxy Hi Keerthi, Thanks! -Original Message- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact Header when passing through a proxy

: Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact Header when passing through a proxy Manoj Priyankara [TG] wrote: > Dear All, > > When an INVITE passes through a SIP proxy, should the contact header > change? > > Thanks > BR, > Manoj > >

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact Header when passing through a proxy

Manoj Priyankara [TG] wrote: > Dear All, > > When an INVITE passes through a SIP proxy, should the contact header > change? > > Thanks > BR, > Manoj > > ___ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columb

[Sip-implementors] Contact Header when passing through a proxy

Dear All, When an INVITE passes through a SIP proxy, should the contact header change? Thanks BR, Manoj ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact-Header in 100 Trying...

2009/2/20 maverick me : > Hi All, > > Can 100 Trying have contact header? > Is there any specification which says in which all SIP messages contact > header can present. Take into account that 100 Trying is hop by hop. This is: aliceProxy bob INVITE -> <

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact-Header in 100 Trying...

...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of maverick me Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:54 AM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: [Sip-implementors] Contact-Header in 100 Trying... Hi All, Can 100 Trying have contact header? Is there any specification which says in which all SIP messages contact

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact-Header in 100 Trying...

Rohit Aggarwal Aricent -Original Message- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of maverick me Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:54 AM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: [Sip-implementors

[Sip-implementors] Contact-Header in 100 Trying...

Hi All, Can 100 Trying have contact header? Is there any specification which says in which all SIP messages contact header can present. Regards, Ankit ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer

From: Ansuman Mukherjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> By saying it "works properly", I mean that I am able to have both MO as well as MT calls from/to the X-Lite via the Server. Ethereal traces from the X-Lite UA end depicts messages being exchanged to&fro this Server. Just to confirm the sam

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer

fied this from the Server end traces also. But I must really say that in the 200-OK response sent by this Server it depicts 0 bindings, which obviously means no Registrations in this Server. Now this is where I'm not clear as to how is this working then? > Subject: RE: [Sip-implem

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer

PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rayees Khan Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:38 PM To: Ansuman Mukherjee; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer Hi Ansuman, If we go by RFC the 200 OK for REGISTER should contain all the

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer

entors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer Hi Rayees, By saying it "works properly", I mean that I am able to have both MO as well as MT calls from/to the X-Lite via the Server. Ethereal traces from th

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer

2:53 PM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer Hello All, I'm facing an unique issue with a specific SIP Server in here. The issue is - the' Contact' header is always missing in t

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIP Server

Ansuman, Normally, a SIP client receiving a 200 OK to REGISTER without any Contacts will interpret this as "no contacts registered", i.e. registration failure. Normally it would only occur after a de-registration. However, there is nothing to stop a client from sending an INVITE when it is not

Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:53 AM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: [Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIPServer Hello All, I'm facing an unique issue with a specific SIP Server in here. The issue is - the' Contact' header is a

[Sip-implementors] Contact header missing in 200-OK sent by SIP Server

Hello All, I'm facing an unique issue with a specific SIP Server in here. The issue is - the' Contact' header is always missing in the 200-OK message sent in reply to the initial REGISTER message. However when I try with X-Lite with this Server, it works properly even if the con