Thank you Does B violates some standard changing original PAI value?
21.01.2019, 11:09, "OKUMURA Shinji" <ietf.shi...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > RFC3325/9.1 > Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG > ------------ ----- ----- --- --- --- --- --- --- > P-Asserted-Identity adr - o - o o - > > RFC3261/20 says, > An empty entry in the "where" column indicates that the header > field may be present in all requests and responses. > > According to the above, PAI may be present in responses of INVITE. > > And PAI in responses indicates callee's ID. > > Regards, > Shinji > > On 2019/01/18 22:22, r...@yandex.ru wrote: >> Hi everyone >> >> Could some point to the doc or maybe clarify if B is correct in the >> following. >> >> A sends INVITE to B. There is PAI header, lets say P-Asserted-Identity: >> "Alice" <sip:+1...@hostname.com> >> >> B in reply (SIP/183 and SIP/200) sends for example P-Asserted-Identity: >> "Bob" <sip:+4...@abcd.com>, that means PAI header completely differs from >> that in INVITE. >> >> A acts like it doesn't see SIP/183, SIP/200. >> >> Please advise if changing of PAI in this case is correct. > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
