3 Mar
2008
3 Mar
'08
9:46 p.m.
At 20:12 03/03/2008, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
El Lunes, 3 de Marzo de 2008, Jiri Kuthan escribió:
Yes, but the fact is that many proxies implement this behaviour (same as the
suggested in the draft) in some propietary/custom way.
For example, what about OpenSer?
Unless it has been explicitely changed after its fork from ser, it forwards
replies. (which has been knowingly put there so).
BTW--I have posted a question to the SIP WG, I really think that at least
MUST should be turned into SHOULD or even better informative documentation
of what the alleged security risks are. But that's just FYI, IETF debates
grow to be very lengthy.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sparks-sip-invfix-01#section-8.2
-------------------------------------------------------------
When a response is received by an element, it first tries to
locate a client transaction (Section 17.1.3) matching the
response. If none is found, the element MUST NOT forward the
response. If a transaction is found, the response is handed to
the client transaction.
-------------------------------------------------------------
That's true, but I respectfuly disagree with this suggestion. Anyhow, at
the moment it is merely an Internet Draft under discussion.
So, in case the Timer is expired in OpenSer it
MUST drop any reply
received after it.
By RFC3261 (and by my common sense), that's not the case. In case the timer expires and OpenSer doesn't
generate a CANCEL, will OpenSer
forward stateless a future reply?
with the above reservation, yes.
Also, since OpenSer generated the "408
timeout", in the case the later 200 OK
arrives to the caller it will be discarted, so...
in the silent mode, it neither sends a 408 nor a CANCEL. it just discards
the transaction context.
-jiri
Best regards.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.openser.org
http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/