[reSIProcate] Register challenged with 407, why not 401?

[Scott Godin]

We need to make the ServerAuthMaanger more general - in order support either
407 (for proxies) or 401 (UA's).  Currently only 407's are implemented,
since this is used in repro (proxy).

 

I have tentative plans to work on this in next few weeks.

 

Scott

 

From: resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Steven
Coule
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 6:25 PM
To: resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: [reSIProcate] Register challenged with 407, why not 401?

 

We noticed at SIPit that a number of UACs did not cope with having their
REGISTER challenged with 407 Proxy-authenticate, but instead expected 401
Unauthorised.

 

Dum/ServerAuthmanager.cxx seems to have 407 hard-coded . 

 

Does anyone have any strong feelings as to why this is the case? Should we
really be sending a 401 when not acting as a proxy?  (Our app is a B2BUA).


Thanks,

 

Steve Coule


Envox UK Ltd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20061030/98997d8e/attachment.htm>