Hi, Ya I agree that initiating a new transaction just for convey non-auth. seems messy.....
Anyways thanks for the inputs.. Regards, Vineet Menon On 15 April 2012 22:39, Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 15 apr 2012 kl. 16:32 skrev Vineet Menon: > > > Ho Olle, > > > > So, is that the issue with not being able to authnticate response > messages, that how to convey the sender that one is unable to say whether > he was able to auth. the response??? > > > > I thought it would be regarding something else in the protocol..... > > > > Anyways, can't it be done that UAC sends an Option message to indicate > this?? > > Well, the important part is to look at this directionwise. You have one > part that sends the INVITE, the CALLER. THe callee now is able to verify > the identity (and the message) of the caller. > > Sending an OPTIONs as a response to a response is a severe violation of > the design of SIP. You might consider using some message in the other > direction that is valid during the call setup, but even that would be > messy, like a PRACK or an UPDATE. It would mean that the caller would > propably have to keep the ACK, which would seriously mess the INVITE > transaction. > > Any other ideas out there? > > /O _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
