[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Linphone-developers] REGISTER bug
From: |
Simon Morlat |
Subject: |
Re: [Linphone-developers] REGISTER bug |
Date: |
Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:17:02 +0200 |
Hi Klaus,
0.12.2 is prehistoric version. Fortunately this tag bug no more exists
in recent versions.
SImon
Le lundi 28 mars 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Klaus Darilion a écrit :
>
> Am 25.03.2011 11:38, schrieb Guillaume BERAUDO:
> > Hi Klaus,
> >
> > Thanks for your email.
> >
> >> From: <sip:address@hidden>;tag=3925467721
> >> To: <sip:address@hidden>;tag=3925467721
> >> The To header is buggy as it must not contain a tag.
> >
> > Why do you thing it is buggy?
> >
> > I read on http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt #20.39 :
> >
> > The following are examples of valid To header fields:
> > To: The Operator <sip:address@hidden>;tag=287447
> > t: sip:address@hidden
>
> Yes, it is allowed from the grammer, but not in the context of a
> registration.
>
> The From/To tags identify dialogs. An out-of-dialog request contains
> only a From-tag. An in-dialog request contains also a To-tag.
>
> REGISTER does not create a dialog. Thus, the REGISTER is always an
> out-of-dialog request. Even re-Registrations are out-of-dialog thus must
> not have a to-tag (as the to-tag is generated by the UAS).
>
> See also the RFC: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-8.1.1.2
>
> > A request outside of a dialog MUST NOT contain a To tag; the tag in
> > the To field of a request identifies the peer of the dialog. Since
> > no dialog is established, no tag is present.
>
>
> regards
> Klaus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linphone-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/linphone-developers
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Linphone-developers] REGISTER bug,
Simon Morlat <=