Have a look at: pjsip/src/pjsua-lib/pjsua_call.c: get_secure_level(); It seems to me that PJSIP does not support SIPS scheme in Record-Route. That said, you have to put SIP and "transport=tls" when writing Record-Route.
Regards, Brez On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Brez Borland <brez...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Inaki, > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> wrote: > >> Hi, I'm experimenting a problem with a client (PJSIP) connecting to a >> proxy via TLS: >> >> - The client uses "sip:" scheme in INVITE headers and "sip:" with >> ";transport=tls" in Contact header. It is valid according to some RFC. >> >> - The proxy routes the INVITE via UDP and adds a Record-Route like this: >> >> Record-Route: <sips:IP_PROXY:PORT;transport=tcp> >> > > Did you try without the transport parameter at all, just "sips"? > > > Regards, > > Brez > > >> >> - However the the client receives the 200 with the mirrored >> Record-Route, it does not send the ACK via TLS (it just does not send >> it at all). >> >> - But if the proxy would use a Record-Route as follows then the ACK is >> correctly sent: >> >> Record-Route: <sip:IP_PROXY:PORT;transport=tls> >> >> >> >> My question is: is it valid the first Record-Route my proxy is adding? >> or should I use ";transport=tls" as in the working Record-Route just >> because the INVITE has no "sips" scheme? >> >> Thanks a lot. >> >> -- >> Iñaki Baz Castillo >> <i...@aliax.net> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sip-implementors mailing list >> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
