El Friday 14 September 2007 13:17:09 Klaus Darilion escribió: > Juha Heinanen schrieb: > > Klaus Darilion writes: > > > Are you sure? I think > > > INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > > > Route: <sip:iptel.org;lr> > > > > that kind of route header uri does not provide any added value to request > > uri. > > You are correct but IMO it is still legal.
I think "Route" header should be canonical hostname and not the SIP domain: In "SIP Forum"'s SIPconnect program to get SIP compliant devices and services we can read: "SIP Proxy Servers MUST use canonical hostnames in any 'Via:' and/or 'Route:' SIP header field that it inserts in the SIP message.": http://www.zoomerang.com/web/SharedResults/SharedResultsSurveyResultsPage.aspx?ID=L234XRLBNYYH (step 15) So if that is true then OpenSer behaviour is correct and there is a bug in oSIP stack because it shouldn't add a "Route" header with SIP domain value in REGISTER messages. Could anyone confirm this in order to report the bug to oSIP developers? -- ilimit... *Iñaki Baz Castillo* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ÀREA SISTEMES 0034 937 333 375 VOLTA 1, PIS 5 08224 TERRASSA.BCN Aquest enviament és confidencial i està destinat únicament a la persona a qui s'ha enviat. Pot contenir informació privada sotmesa al secret professional, la distribució de la qual està prohibida per la legislació vigent. _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
