You are correct, both should be Proxy-Authorization. Thanks, Jonathan R.
Attila Sipos wrote: > In the following draft: > draft-ietf-sip-call-flows-05.txt > > There are two sections I'm intereseted in: > "3.1.2 Successful SIP to SIP through two proxies" > and > "3.1.3 SIP to SIP with Multi Proxy Authentication" > > In section 3.1.2, the first few transactions are: > > | | | | > | INVITE F1 | | | > |--------------->| | | > | 407 F2 | | | > |<---------------| | | > | ACK F3 | | | > |--------------->| | | > | INVITE F4 | | | > |--------------->| > > The "407" message has a "Proxy-Authenticate" header and > the INVITE (F4) has an "Authorization" header. > > > In section 3.1.3, the first few transactions are: > > User A Proxy 1 Proxy 2 User B > | INVITE F1 | | | > |----------->| | | > | 407 Proxy Authorization Required F2 | > |<-----------| | | > | ACK F3 | | | > |----------->| | | > | INVITE F4 | | | > |----------->| | | > > Once again, the "407" message has a "Proxy-Authenticate" > header BUT THIS TIME the INVITE (F4) has a > "Proxy-Authorization" header. > > > Is one of these wrong? > > Shouldn't the "Proxy-Authorization" header be used in both cases? > > > Cheers, > > Attila > > > Attila Sipos > Software Engineer > > <http://www.vegastream.com> > > > VegaStream : A World of difference for your Integrated Communications > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
