Yes the Contact Header does contain anonymous.invalid and that is the basis for our rejection. Is it valid to reject the call on this basis?
Thanks Adam ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> *Sent:* Mon, Dec 17, 2012 2:09:21 PM *To:* [email protected] *CC:* *Subject:* Re: [Sip-implementors] Is " <sip:anonymous.invalid; [email protected]:5060; maddr=10.10.10.10; transport=udp; user=phone>" a valid Contact Header? > On 12/17/12 1:10 PM, Adam Frankel wrote: >> Hi SIP Implementors, >> >> I am seeking your guidance on an interop issue with a third party PBX. >> They are sending an invite with a Contact Header that looks like this: >> >> Contact: >> <sip:anonymous.invalid;[email protected]:5060;maddr=10.10.10.10;transport=udp;user=phone> >> >> Please note I have changed the domain and the IP. > But the contact actually has sip:anonymous.invalid? > >> We reject the INVITE with SIP/2.0 400 Bad Request - 'Malformed/Missing >> Contact field' > On what basis do you conclude that the request is malformed? > > IMO there is much that is ill-advised, but nothing that makes it > invalid. (Why didn't it just use <sip:10.10.10.10:5060;transport=udp>? > Or perhaps <sip:something;[email protected]:5060;transport=udp>.) > > The anonymous.invalid would be a problem if you actually had to send > something to it. But because the maddr is present, you won't actually > need to send anything to anonymous.invalid. > > The phone-context and user=phone aren't defined as a sip uri parameters, > but that just means you should ignore them. > > Thanks, > Paul > _______________________________________________ > 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
