Dale, Ranga, Thanks a lot for the answers. Rgds, Nikolay. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > M. Ranganathan > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:57 PM > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] authorization theoretical question > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > ________________________________________ > > From: [email protected] > > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nikolay > > Kondratyev [[email protected]] > > > > I know that there are many sip gurus in the list... > > I encountered the registrar, that uses status 407 in reply > to Register instead of 401. > > What i managed to find out in rfc 3261, is that (if i'm not > mistaken) registrar should use 401. > > But what could be the consequences of this misbehaviour? > > ________________________________________ > > > > I don't think there should be any consequences. The UA > should act on a 407 in the same way as it acts on a 401. > > I think the difference is whether or not Proxy-Authenticate vs. > WWW-Authenticate header is used in the response. Both are > correct and can be handled by sipXbridge. > > > > > > > Dale > > _______________________________________________ > > sipx-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > > > > > > -- > M. Ranganathan > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
