Re: [sipx-users] authorization theoretical question

2010-12-16 Thread Nikolay Kondratyev
list for users of sipXecs software > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] authorization theoretical question > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) > wrote: > > > > From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org >

Re: [sipx-users] authorization theoretical question

2010-12-15 Thread M. Ranganathan
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > > From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org > [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Nikolay Kondratyev > [k...@nstel.ru] > > I know that there are many sip gurus in the li

Re: [sipx-users] authorization theoretical question

2010-12-15 Thread Worley, Dale R (Dale)
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Nikolay Kondratyev [k...@nstel.ru] I know that there are many sip gurus in the list... I encountered the registrar, that uses status 407 in reply to Registe

[sipx-users] authorization theoretical question

2010-12-15 Thread Nikolay Kondratyev
Hi all, I know that there are many sip gurus in the list... I encountered the registrar, that uses status 407 in reply to Register instead of 401. What i managed to find out in rfc 3261, is that (if i'm not mistaken) registrar should use 401. But what could be the consequences of this misbehaviou