According to Table 2 in RFC2543 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2543.html the
port used to be valid in To headers
So for backwards compatability reasons it should be accepted, but ignored
Jeroen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Worley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:15 PM
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Question about : and port
numberfollowingSIPTO and SIP From addresses
From: Howard Kao
I asked because some IP phones cannot register with our server if
their From: and To: address are like sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060. Most
phones can register well without the :5060, and some people are saying
that registration should work either with or without the :5060 or
other port number. Therefore I would like to know what's the official
view from RFCs on this.
Assuming we take guidance from section 25 rather than Table 1 of section
19.1.1, the URL is acceptable. But beware that adding the port number
suppresses DNS SRV and NAPTR interpretation -- often, there is no machine
with the name "server.com", but there is an SRV record for server.com
pointing to the SIP server for that domain. So "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will
work but "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060" will not.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
