Hi Robert, Robert Borz wrote: > Just had a look at RFC 3261... 269 pages... well, looks for a hard work for > one day... but it isn't written to understand and answer my dumb questions > within one or two hours. ;) > indeed, the RFC3261 is like a novel :)..... > So, just want to know which contents in an ACK message are allowed in which > case... > > Especially, I'm interested in which contents in an ACK are allowed in a > response to a 200 OK (after INVITE)... is the Proxy-Authorization header > field allowed in an ACK as response to a 200 OK of an INVITE? > yes, it is optional - see the RFC3261, section 20.1 , page 163 - Table 3 > Maybe someone read my previous two mails, I'm a little confused right now... > > I detected different behaviour between different UACs, which is nothing > unusual for me (I'm just a developer, too). > > X-Lite for example includes the digest-credentials in an ACK packet in the > Proxy-Authorization header field, whereas the snom-softphone does not. > The Ekige softphone for windows also includes the Proxy-Authorization header > field. > > So, which behaviour is standard? It would be great to get any help from > you... just to spare the time reading the whole RFC... :-( > well, all are correct, as the header presence in the ACK request is optional....
My understanding on the RFC (on the auth matter) is that if the INVITE has an "Proxy-Authorization" headers, the ACK should also contain one...but it is not a must, it is a recommendation. The idea is, if the proxy asked for auth for INVITE, it might ask for the ACK also....but as you cannot challenge the ACK, the client should pre-fill the auth in ACK. Regards, Bogdan > <lying>But, I don’t mind reading it...</lying> ;-P > > > Robert. > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
