Hi Igor,

the Authorization header must be exactly the same because the uri is in
the calculation of the response. A proxy or UA will maybe not process
the ACK because of a wrong response.

We are copy the Authentication header to the ACK:

This is correct:
username="testcaller",realm="sip.example.com",nonce="55555",uri="sip:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]",response="[skippedmysecondresponse]"

But something is wrong with your second header. I think it should be
similar with the AOR of the To Tag. We encountered of some problems with
NAT where some SIP aware firewalls which replaces a private IP with the
public IP and the request always failed. Feel free to read chapter "22
Usage of HTTP Authentication".

Regards,
Markus


Igor Vanin wrote:
> Hello, All
> 
> Which URI should I use in "uri" parameter of Authorization header field in 
> ACK request after 200 response from server: the same URI as in INVITE request 
> or new Request-URI obtained from Contact HF of 200 response?
> 
> After INVITE/401/ACK transaction, my softphone sends to the Proxy an INVITE 
> request with the following lines:
> 
> INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
> To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Authorization: Digest 
> username="testcaller",realm="sip.example.com",nonce="55555",uri="sip:[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]",response="[skippedmyfirstresponse]"
> 
> Then I receive 200 response from server:
> 
> SIP/2.0 200 OK
> To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=111
> Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060>
> 
> Then the UAC core generates ACK request with updated Request-URI:
> 
> ACK sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
> To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=111
> Which Authorization header field is correct?
> This:
> Authorization: Digest 
> username="testcaller",realm="sip.example.com",nonce="55555",uri="sip:[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]",response="[skippedmysecondresponse]"
> or this:
> Authorization: Digest 
> username="testcaller",realm="sip.example.com",nonce="55555",uri="sip:[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]:5060",response="[skippedmysecondresponse]"
> ?
> 
> RFC-3261 claims that the ACK MUST contain the same credentials as the INVITE. 
> Is the "uri" parameter the part of "credentials", or it should match the 
> Request-URI of each request?
> 
> --
> With best regards, Igor Vanin, St. Petersburg, Russia
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://gpmail.spb.ru 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to