6 jul 2011 kl. 13.39 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo: > 2011/7/6 Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]>: >>> Also, I've already make a question previously: you say that >>> "transport=tls" is correct, so is "tls-sctp" also correct? RFC 4168 >>> (SIP over SCTP) defines "SCTP" and "TLS-SCTP" for Via transport, >>> similar to "TCP" and "TLS" (which means TCP over TLS). But RFC 4168 >>> does not define "tls-sctp" for an URI transport param. Why not? >>> because the correct way is "sips" schema and ";transport=sctp". >> >> THis is defined according to RFC5630: >> For Via header fields, the following transport protocols are defined >> in [RFC3261]: "UDP", "TCP", "TLS", "SCTP", and in [RFC4168]: "TLS- >> SCTP". > > Transport in Via header and transport in SIP URI header are different > things. In the RFC 3261 BNF they appear as different elements. The > fact that some values match doesn't mean that are equivalent in both > sides. > > Said that, this stuf becomes more and more complex due to this fact: > this is: Via transport accepts "TLS" or "TLS-SCTP" while ;transport > does not.
I missed that we ahve two different name spaces. Ouch. Wonder if anyone has tried using this. Seems like you either build a non-tls network or a TLS-network where you implement TLS by mandate and don't bother with SIP or SIPS uri's. So what does Kamailio say if I have SIPS target URI and my NAPTR doesn't have any entries for TLS? /O _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
