Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: SipXecs Forum In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 <66708> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Hi there, I am also having this problem. Our VoIP product only supports RFC 2069, but doesn't support RFC 2617 so when SIPXecs sends the qop=auth it expects these additional fields even if qop=auth is not supported. Looking at the issue tracker: http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-7997 "Scott Lawrence added a comment - 2010-03-22 16:49 We recently updated the registrar to correctly implement RFC 2617. In particular, it now requires the use of the 'qop' parameter, which was in the challenge you captured, but the NCH implementation did not use it, so the authentication failed." but in RFC 2617: "qop This directive is optional in order to preserve backward compatibility with a minimal implementation of RFC 2069 [6], but SHOULD be used if the server indicated that qop is supported by providing a qop directive in the WWW-Authenticate header field. " Doesn't this indicate that the qop parameter is not a hard requirement, but an option? I.e. Use of the keyword "MUST" vs. "SHOULD" in RFC 2617? _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
