Dear All, Could you please help me on this to understand this.
Thanks, Nitin On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Attila Sipos <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > I'm saying that the ftag parameter is a legal parameter. > I have no idea what the ftag parameter means but I'm saying > that the grammar of it is legal as defined by RFC3261. > > One of the Record-Route components is the URI and the > ftag is a valid grammar as defined by the uri-parameter grammar and > other-param grammar. > > uri-parameter = transport-param / user-param / method-param > / ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param > other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ] > > the value of ftag you showed contains no special characters and is a valid > pvalue > > *ftag=4F6C3030343338350007D3E5;* > > > Regards > > Attila > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Nitin Kapoor [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 22 March 2011 13:36 > *To:* Attila Sipos > *Cc:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [Sip-implementors] Ftag Parameter in Record-Route > > Dear Attila, > > So you are saying that whatever is coming in FTAG are correct as below? > > * > <sip:79.99.193.141;lr;ftag=4F6C3030343338350007D3E5;vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--;vst=AAAAAHQEBAMFAAUABwZzAg0deQ4XHwAKAAAKCy4xNDE-;did=9b.dcc08423> > * > > Thanks, > Nitin > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Attila Sipos <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Record-Route headers often have opaque parameters which are >> not in any draft or RFC. Such parameters have no meaning except >> to the entity which added them. >> >> For Record-Route all you have to do is reflect the route back. >> When you use the learnt route in a Route header you have to >> quote the full learnt route including all its parameters. >> As long as the parameters follow the general grammar rules, >> it should not matter what is the content. >> >> So in the case of the ftag, it looks legal and should be used as >> is supplied (along with the rest of the route information). >> So, your SBC should not be rejecting it due to the ftag header. >> If it does, the SBC is behaving wrongly. >> >> (When I get a problem like this I often strip out the suspect >> header and try to send the message using something like SIPP >> to see if the message is still rejected) >> >> Regards >> >> Attila >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] on behalf of Nitin >> Kapoor >> Sent: Tue 22/03/2011 00:20 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Ftag Parameter in Record-Route >> >> Dear All, >> >> Could anyone please help me out on this. >> >> Thanks, >> Nitin >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Nitin Kapoor <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > Dear All, >> > >> > i am facing the problem with one of my customer where i noticed that >> > Record-Route header containing the "ftag" parameter. >> > >> > INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0 >> > Record-Route: >> > >> <sip:79.99.193.141;lr;ftag=4F6C3030343338350007D3E5;vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--;vst=AAAAAHQEBAMFAAUABwZzAg0deQ4XHwAKAAAKCy4xNDE-;did=9b.dcc08423> >> > Content-Type:application/sdp >> > To:sip:[email protected] >> > From:sip:[email protected] >> > ;cpc=ordinary;tag=4F6C3030343338350007D3E5 >> > Privacy:none >> > P-Asserted-Identity:sip:[email protected];cpc=ordinary >> > Supported:100rel,timer >> > Expires:120 >> > Date:Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:02:01 GMT >> > Session-Expires:3600 >> > Min-SE:90 >> > Call-ID:01FF945D4C81400000054AC4@TB004385_VOIP0 >> > CSeq:1 INVITE >> > Route:<sip:79.99.193.141:5060;lr;transport=udp> >> > Max-Forwards:69 >> > Timestamp:512997 >> > User-Agent:TB004385 >> > Contact:sip:[email protected]:5061 >> > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 79.99.193.141;branch=z9hG4bK1f07.16311b13.0 >> > Via:SIP/2.0/UDP 79.99.193.138:5060 >> > >> ;received=79.99.193.138;branch=z9hG4bKDD5A2E7439308FCEA1D45366471A437C;rport=5060 >> > Content-Length:344 >> > >> > Now above is my INVITE which is coming from UAC to SBC and my SBC is >> > sending 400 Bad Request to UAC. My doubt is that FTAG is containing the >> > invalid correct hence SBC is unable to understand the nature of this >> invite >> > hence sending the 400. >> > >> > Could anyone please help me out to understand this? also is there any >> limit >> > for the character in FTAG? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Nitin Kapoor >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Sip-implementors mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >> >> >> >> . >> > > > > . > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
