On 4/23/13 3:45 AM, Keerthi Srinivasan wrote:
> 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.
The contact in your example has no 'gr' parameter, and so it isn't a gruu.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
