RFC 7118 only specifies "ws" as a SIP URI parameter in section 5.2. The distinction for Via header transports says "WS/WSS". It kind of repeats the old mistake of using the "SIPS" uri to indicate a secure transport. I would recommend ignoring this as we do in the case of TLS transport for SIP: URI's and follow the suggestion in this issue.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <kamailio/kamailio/issues/4168/2706090869@github.com>
RFC 7118 only specifies "ws" as a SIP URI parameter in section 5.2. The distinction for Via header transports says "WS/WSS". It kind of repeats the old mistake of using the "SIPS" uri to indicate a secure transport. I would recommend ignoring this as we do in the case of TLS transport for SIP: URI's and follow the suggestion in this issue.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: <kamailio/kamailio/issues/4168/2706090869@github.com>
oej left a comment