All, I am testing below URI comparison in GRUU testing.
Here is the RFC ref from RFC5627. If the contact URI is equivalent (based on URI equivalence in RFC <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261> 3261 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261> [1 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5627#ref-1>]) to the AOR, the registrar MUST reject the request with a 403, since this would cause a routing loop. If the contact URI is a GRUU for the AOR in the To header field of the REGISTER request, the registrar MUST reject the request with a 403, for the same reason. If the contact is not a SIP URI, the REGISTER request MUST be rejected with a 403. Here is the REGISTER message REGISTER sip:10.232.15.192:5070 SIP/2.0 To: <sip:[email protected]> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.232.5.141;branch=z9hG4bK-6852-1-0 From: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=123451001 Call-ID: 00000001 CSeq: 11 REGISTER Max-Forwards: 70 supported: gruu require: gruu Contact: <sip:[email protected]:5060 ;msi-deviceName=device1;msi-deviceHwId=12347ju399k1001;msi-deviceDomain=10.232.15.192>;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c9e6bf6>" Content-Length: 0 Registrar generates 200 OK instead 403. is the behavior in the registrar is right for the URI comparison rule. -- Regards, Keerthi _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
