6 Jul
2011
6 Jul
'11
2:17 p.m.
2011/7/6 Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>et>:
Thanks for pointing it out. I can imagine the reason for this
requeriment: ensure that both parts of the communications (requests
from both sides) use a secure layer.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
Why? We are
talking about the URI in the (Record-) Route header here,
which _only_ indicates how to get to the next hop. If you put a SIPS URI
in there, this has no consequence whatsoever for the complete path.
Because RFC
5630 says that if a Route header has SIPS the contact also has to be SIPS.
As mandated by [RFC3261], Section 12.1.1:
If the request that initiated the dialog contained a SIPS URI in
the Request-URI or in the top Record-Route header field value, if
there was any, or the Contact header field if there was no Record-
Route header field, the Contact header field in the response MUST
be a SIPS URI.