(2) could also happen if the second try takes a different path, visiting
a proxy not visited the first time. (Strange but possible.) Or it could
be that the initial request already had credentials that worked for a
proxy, but by the time of the second attempt those credentials had expired.
I think this is just a case you don't want to second guess. If you are
challenged, and are capable of responding to the challenge, then you
should do so.
Paul
Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
> Raghu,
>
> Both are valid, but (1) makes more sense (and should be more common in
> practice) than (2). (2) could occur if the proxy has a policy of only
> challenging requests which contain credentials that are invalid for the
> proxy.
>
> Regards,
> Jeroen
>
> Raghu Thodime wrote:
>> Can anybody explain if following two scenarios are valid and where:
>> 1. UAC receives 407 for the request it sent out and again it gets 401
>> for the request it sent out in response to previous 407
>> 2. UAC receives 401 for the request it sent out and again it gets 407
>> for the request it sent out in response to previous 401
>>
>> For me, it looks like case 1 is valid where proxy sits between UAC &
>> UAS and both proxy & UAS challenge in that order. Can anybody
>> clarify?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Raghu
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
