[SIPForum-discussion] Processing request Request-URI and To URI
Joby Joseph
j.joby82 at gmail.com
Wed May 29 03:07:04 UTC 2013
Hi Parasu,
I find two questions raised in your mail and answer to your first question
1. Is Request-URI and To URI should be same ?
Joby> They need not be same, To URI indicates the actual called party
and Request URI points the next hope and it can be over written by the sip
proxies.
Best Regards,
Joby Joseph
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Kumarasami Parasuraman-QXVB36 <
QXVB36 at motorolasolutions.com> wrote:
> ** **
>
> Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> Is anywhere in the RFC said Processing / generating Request, Request-URI
> and To URI should be same. ****
>
> ** **
>
> While processing request Request-URI has, sip:domain.com and To URI has,
> sip:user at domain.com. Is the UAS can reject the request with 403 Forbidden.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Please clarify me.****
>
> ** **
>
> As per the RFC3261(Character Escaping Requirements) , User part is
> optional in both Request-URI and To URI.****
>
> ** **
>
> 19.1.2 Character Escaping Requirements****
>
> ** **
>
> dialog****
>
> reg./redir. Contact/****
>
> default Req.-URI To From Contact R-R/Route external**
> **
>
> *user -- o o o o o o*
>
> password -- o o o o o o****
>
> host -- m m m m m m****
>
> port (1) o - - o o o****
>
> user-param ip o o o o o o****
>
> method INVITE - - - - - o****
>
> maddr-param -- o - - o o o****
>
> ttl-param 1 o - - o - o****
>
> transp.-param (2) o - - o o o****
>
> lr-param -- o - - - o o****
>
> other-param -- o o o o o o****
>
> headers -- - - - o - o****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Parasu****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130529/834c79fa/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the discussion
mailing list