Juha Heinanen writes:
Tom van der Geer writes:
> I agree... And the funny thing is that the To tag is in the 401, but
> somehow it's not recognized by sipctrl. See the SEMS logging (level 3)
> below. Notice the To tag in the 401 and the Debug message about the
> missing To tag...
more huhs, they should send 407, not 401 in order to ask authentication
of the invite.
and even if they would send 407, the new invite that follows has nothing
to do with the first one.
they must have been totally drunk or stoned when they wrote they
software.
Hi Juha,
Well a 401 is valid as well when their server acts as a SIP registrar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIP_Responses
And about the missing 'To tag'... I think sipctrl expects the 401 to
have something like:
From: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=257D14C7-4A08806B000D96A0-B6E6BBB0
To: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=SOME-TAG-HERE
Notice the ";tag=..." in the To header which is not present in the
original response. I'm not sure if that's mandatory by the SIP RFCs...
Regards,
Tom
_______________________________________________
Sems mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/sems
