I agree with Dale.
This may be *technically* conforming to the spec, but is pathological
behavior. Its right up there with returning a 200 to the registration
request without having accepted the registration at all.
Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: "Barman, Sibon B \(Sibon\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> One thing I am still not clear if 3261 specifies clearly that the
> contact address in the response has to be the same (in literal sense) as
> the contact address in the registration request. Is the public address
> corresponding to a private address (in NAT environment) considered
> equivalent?
>
> I see no reason to think so. I would not expect UAs to behave
> correctly if the REGISTER request contained the private address (which
> the UA knows) and the response contained the public address (which the
> UA does not know).
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> 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
