On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Arjun Nair <[email protected]> wrote: > Dale Worley wrote: >> Looking at 3261 and 2543, I think the point is that in 2543, both from- >> and to-tags are optional, but people rapidly learned that the UAS needs >> to provide a to-tag to allow forking to be handled correctly. >> >> So I think the "compatibility with 2543" point is that the from-tag may >> be missing, but that to-tag processing will be as we expect from 3261. >> >>> if we don't find a from tag in a request, can we just compare the >>> whole from field instead? >> >> That seems to be the correct thing to do. >> > > Right, I understand.. I will implement it as: > > if [ first_cseq == second_cesq ] > then > if [ first_to_tag == second_to_tag > || first_to_tag.isNull # <-- Support for matching dialog > forming > || second_to_tag.isNull ] # <-- requests with the correct dialog > then > > if [ first_from_tag.isNull > && second_from_tag.isNull ] > then > if [ RFC 2543 : COMPARE THE ENTIRE FROM FIELD ] > then > DIALOG_MATCH = TRUE; > fi > else if [ first_from_tag == second_from_tag ] > then > DIALOG_MATCH = TRUE; > fi > > fi > fi > >
I think it ought to be fine to reject requests without a From: tag. I have not seen one of those since ancient times ( i.e. the glory days of Y2K) Ranga > Arjun > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
