2009/1/8 Paulo Pizarro <paulo.piza...@gmail.com>: > There is a specification for conformance test of RFC 3261 defined by ETSI > (www.etsi.org): ETSI TS 102 027-2 V4.1.1 Conformance Test Specification for > SIP (IETF RFC 3261) > > I started a job to validate the sofia in accordance with this specification. > And while I tested only the mandatory items that refer to the REGISTER of > the UA.
Whee. C00l. ... > The SIP_RG_RT_TI_005 item has not passed the test, but the RFC 3261 does not > define clearly whether the first timer E in the state "proceeding" must be > T1 as ETSI demands. > > ETSI: > > TPId: SIP_RG_RT _TI_005 > Status: Mandatory > Ref: RFC 3261 [1] annex A and section 17.1.3. > Purpose: Ensure that the IUT, when a REGISTER client transaction is in the > Proceeding state, repeats its > REGISTER request after timer E set to T1 value expires. If I understand correctly, the problem is because spec does not specify whether the timer E is restarted (with T2) when entering the "proceeding" state or if it continues running with T1. NTA takes first approach and ETSI spec second? This is pretty irrelevant, a RFC4320 compliant server will send a preliminary response only after the client's timer E value has grown to T2. Looking from the code, it is possible just to remove the call to outgoing_set_timer() (around line 9038 in nta.c). > The SIP_MG_RT_I_003 item also has no passed the test. The response received > was rejected by sofia. > > SIP/2.0 200 OK > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.166.190;rport;branch= > z9hG4bKKZHN0XU3S8Kam > From: <sip:2...@192.168.170.101>;tag=K778U1FKv37HN?patito=legal > To: <sip:2...@192.168.170.101>;tag=1?patito=legal > Call-ID: b4468663-5820-122c-b39d-f14e001466ff > CSeq: 109590090 REGISTER > Contact: <sip:192.168.170.101:5060;transport=UDP> > Content-Type: application/sdp > Content-Length: 0 > > TPId: SIP_MG_RT_I_003 > Status: Mandatory > Ref: RFC 3261 [1] section 19.1.1. > Purpose: Ensure that the IUT, having sent a REGISTER request, on receipt of > a Success (200 OK) response > with an URI including a header parameter in the To and From headers > ignores them and considers > to have received a Success (200 OK). The response fails syntax check. Based on the test description the tester should send something like this: From: <sip:2...@192.168.170.101?patito=legal>;tag=K778U1FKv37HN To: <sip:2...@192.168.170.101?patito=legal>;tag=1 > As soon as I finish testing the items related to the establishment of the > call to send the list. Do we get some kind of official stamp of approval for Sofia then? ;) -- Pekka.Pessi mail at nokia.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It is the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Xq1LFB _______________________________________________ Sofia-sip-devel mailing list Sofia-sip-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sofia-sip-devel
