Iñaki, Brett, Paul, thanks for your comments, my replies inline.
Paul Kyzivat wrote: > Yes, 3261 has all those MUSTs in it. But it was there for 2543 > compatibility. AFAIK there is nothing that calls for checking that the URIs > remain unchanged as a requirement for recognizing that the request is an > in-dialog request. > > So I think it might be within the letter of the law to reject the request > with a 400 because it isn't valid. But absent that I would expect it to > accept the request. Returning 481 is IMO wrong. What we got was 400. > Of course it could pretend to be only 2543 compliant. But then, IIRC, it > should not have returned a to-tag during dialog establishment. > > So I think both the proxy and the gw are behaving improperly. Do you mean proxy behavior is still improper allthough customer now has same from URI during the whole dialog "outside" their proxy? (i.e. "inside" of their proxy customer uses local numbers and "outside" the proxy userpart of from URI is prefixed to full E.164) Brett Tate wrote: > RFC 3261 does not allow the To/From uri matching values to change within a > dialog. > RFC 4916 provides the ability to alter To/From uri matching values; however > it requires > the support/use of option-tag “from-change”. Except per RFC 4916, I’m not > aware > of an RFC which has officially deprecated the To/From rules mandated by > RFC 3261 section 12.2.1.1. Yes, that is the exact section we have been discussing with vendor support. I'll better check if there is support to RFC4916, thanks for the hint. -- Mikko Lehto _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
