On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 15:59 -0500, M. Ranganathan wrote: > 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.
Be Liberal In What You Accept. What would it break to allow requests without a From tag? _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
