Hi,
No B doesn't. B has not changed PAI of A. B has just indicated its own ID.
Regards,
Shinji
On 2019/01/24 0:04, r...@yandex.ru wrote:
Thank you
Does B violates some standard changing original PAI value?
21.01.2019, 11:09, "OKUMURA Shinji" <ietf.shi...@gmail.com>:
Hi,
RFC3325/9.1
Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG
------------ ----- ----- --- --- --- --- --- ---
P-Asserted-Identity adr - o - o o -
RFC3261/20 says,
An empty entry in the "where" column indicates that the header
field may be present in all requests and responses.
According to the above, PAI may be present in responses of INVITE.
And PAI in responses indicates callee's ID.
Regards,
Shinji
On 2019/01/18 22:22, r...@yandex.ru wrote:
Hi everyone
Could some point to the doc or maybe clarify if B is correct in the following.
A sends INVITE to B. There is PAI header, lets say P-Asserted-Identity: "Alice"
<sip:+1...@hostname.com>
B in reply (SIP/183 and SIP/200) sends for example P-Asserted-Identity: "Bob"
<sip:+4...@abcd.com>, that means PAI header completely differs from that in INVITE.
A acts like it doesn't see SIP/183, SIP/200.
Please advise if changing of PAI in this case is correct.
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
