13 jan 2011 kl. 10.02 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:

> 2011/1/13 Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]>:
>> YOu're talking about "reject the request" - how do we reject the request 
>> based on policy after a successful authentication?
> 
> REGISTER ->
>           <- 401
> REGISTER ->  (correct credentials)
>           <- 403
> 
> What is wrong sending such 403 after successful authentication? First
> authentication is performed, and then authorization.
> 
> 
>> The RFC indicates to me that if the syntax is correct and we have 
>> authenticated that the request is authorized to bind to the AOR in the To: 
>> header (and follows the rules about SIPS) then we should save the contact 
>> regardless.
> 
> Of course I was speaking about a "local policy making sense" in which
> the registrar rejects a REGISTER coming from untrusted clients and
> containing a Contact URI whicih doesn't match the request source
> address (or it could save the source addrress as location URI as many
> registrars do).
> 
> But I insist: this behaviour cannot be "documented" in a RFC. It's
> like the open relay: a SIP proxy accepting traffic from everywhere and
> routing it according to normal SIP rules (Route headers, RURI...).
> This is like the SPAM in SMTP world, but I'm sure it's not documented
> in RFC 3261.
> 
> 
>> Is there a way to say "Yes, you are authorized to this AOR but you are not 
>> allowed to use this Contact" ?
> 
> On another hand, replying 200 with no Contact header (or just the
> previously existing locations of same AoR but ignoring the new one)
> could work, but again, not documented as a mechanism.
> 
> 
>> ...in a way so that the client UAC understands what's going on and can log a 
>> proper error.
> 
> For that I like more my second proposal (200 without REGISTER Contact URI(s)).
That would work, but maybe a warning header as well. Which would require an 
RFC. 
I don't like the idea of sending 200 OK to failed requests though, it kind of 
breaks my vulcan logic circuit.

/O
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to