On 1/25/13 10:41 AM, Dmitry Akindinov wrote: > Hello, > > On 25.01.2013 19:23, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> On 1/25/13 7:40 AM, Dmitry Akindinov wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On 25.01.2013 16:22, Yaswanth Raparti wrote: >>>> Hi Brett, >>>> >>>> Actually, I gave some random URI to hide the original uri. The original SIP >>>> URI does not have any '%' . It was encoded though. >>> >>> If the Contact URI is syntactically correct and the proxy has inserted >>> itself as the Record-Route header, then you should not be concerned with >>> the Contact URI value and meaning. >>> >>> If the proxy did not insert itself into the dialog path using >>> Record-Route headers, then it has a problem. >> >> You say "you should not be concerned". That depends on what you want to >> do. It is true that such a setup will allow *this* dialog to continue. >> But it won't support anything that needs the contact, like transfer, etc. > > True. I stand corrected. I forgot of those transfer scenarios. Sorry for > possible confusion. > > My point was that implementations often try to semantically process a > SIP URI even when they need a syntactical check at most.
OK, I agree with you on that. If the URI is syntactically correct there should be no further complaint about it unless there is a need to use it. For instance there was another case brought up recently where someone was complaining about a Contact of: <sip:anonymous.invalid;[email protected]:5060;maddr=10.10.10.10;transport=udp;user=phone> even though it was usable via the maddr parameter. Thanks, Paul _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
