> -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Penfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 11:10 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Robert Sparks; Dean Willis > Cc: SIP IETF > Subject: Re: [Sip] Ready for WGLC on SIPS draft? Any last > thoughts ontransport=tls? > > I have seen cases where transport=tls appears in the > Record-Route where one hop between proxies uses TLS. For example: > > UAC--<TCP>-->Proxy1---<TLS>--->Proxy2--<TCP>--->Proxy3---<TCP>-->UAS > > This is done using a SIP URI (not SIPS). > > I have not been able to keep up with this discussion, but the > question I have is: without transport=tls, how would you > express the desire/need to do TLS for a SIP URI in a > Record-Route or Route header? I am talking about a case where > the proxy (Proxy2 above) supports TCP and TLS, but the > selection of transport is made for the initial INVITE, and > that same transport needs to be used for in-dialog requests?
I'd say you use no transport parameter in the Record-Route and you do what 3261 recommends, which is to reuse the same TCP connection (TLS on this case) for in-dialog requests. Also, I'd like to point out that since Record-Route is by definition hop by hop, in that case sips would mean exactly the same as transport=tls. _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
