[SIPForum-discussion] (no subject)

[Badri Ranganathan]

Hi Vivek,



I have seen an implementation (a recent one) where "from" is copied over from "aor" and "contact" is left distinct.



Cheers,

Badri.



From: Badri Ranganathan
Sent: 06 December 2010 09:50
To: 'Vivek Batra'; discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: RE: [SIPForum-discussion] (no subject)



Hi Vivek,



Thanks for the response.



It would have made sense to me if "from" was copied over from "aor" instead of copying from "contact" in the UA implementation.

Whats your opinion on this ?



Cheers,

Badri.



From: Vivek Batra [mailto:Vivek.Batra at Matrixcomsec.com]
Sent: 04 December 2010 03:57
To: Badri Ranganathan; discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: RE: [SIPForum-discussion] (no subject)



Hi,



Is there any reason which force you to offer such flexibility in UA implementation.

We have thousands of UA installed across the globe and I don't see any problem till now.



Best Regards,

Vivek Batra



From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Badri Ranganathan
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 5:59 PM
To: discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] (no subject)



Hi all,



We have these fields in a INVITE message



1.       Contact

2.       CSeq

3.       From

4.       To

5.       Via



The "From" gives us the originator of the SIP INVITE request

The "Contact" gives us the SIP URI of the communication device.



I am seeing an implementation of a UA(User Agent) where contents of "from" is being copied into "contact" before sending out the INVITE message ?

I feel this could prevent the UA from having the flexibility of changing its contact.



i.e., I feel that "contact" should be a separately configurable header field.



Any ideas on how a UA should have been designed ?



Thanks,

Badri.





__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5670 (20101203) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5672 (20101203) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5676 (20101205) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20101206/f7787669/attachment-0002.html>