Re: [reSIProcate] 439 response to REGISTER in Resip 1.8.5
Daniel,
No, I don't believe this was introduced in 1.8.5, I know it behaved the same
way in 1.8.4.
We are not using repro, just resip/dum.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel
Pocock
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:08 PM
To: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] 439 response to REGISTER in Resip 1.8.5
On 23/08/12 02:31, Mike Hubbard wrote:
> It appears in Resip 1.8.5 that if a UAC sends a REGISTER with a reg-id
> parameter in the contact header and branched via, the stack responds
> with a 439, despite the REGISTER not containing a Supported header
> advertising support of the "outbound" feature. Based on my reading of
> the draft
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-outbound-16
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-outbound-16#section-11.6>
> in sections 6 and 11.6, it seems that this is an incorrect response.
> The draft seems to indicate that a 439 should only be sent if the
> REGISTER message contains the reg-id parameter AND the outbound option
tag.
>
>
>
> Has anyone else experienced problems with this?
Did 1.8.2 or 1.8.4 behave differently? Is this a regression with 1.8.5?
Are you using repro or just resip/dum?
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel