On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 10:57 -0500, Arjun Nair wrote: > Scott Lawrence wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 09:58 -0500, Arjun Nair wrote: > >> I tested constructing the request using just the GRUU, against the > >> LG-Nortels. The request is correctly routed to the registrar, where > >> the request-URI is replaced by the phone's contact address. However, > >> the GRUU address is still present in the To header, and the phone > >> chokes on that. > > > > That's a phone bug, but it's probably one we should dodge by always > > putting the AOR in the To header.
Ugh, yes, the phone should accept a request independently of the To-URI, since *any* To-URI might have been forwarded to the current request-URI. Can you file an issue on that? > Section 8.1.1.1 RFC 3261 > > The initial Request-URI of the message SHOULD be set to the value of > the URI in the To field. One notable exception is the REGISTER > method; behavior for setting the Request-URI of REGISTER is given in > Section 10. It may also be undesirable for privacy reasons or > convenience to set these fields to the same value (especially if the > originating UA expects that the Request-URI will be changed during > transit). Yes -- the originating UA is required to put the same URI in the To field as the request header. But because of forwarding, it's impossible for any recipient to determine that that rule has been violated. So it's not really a restriction on the originating UA. In reality, the To-URI is documentation so the human debugger can see what was originally intended by the originating UA. Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
