[OpenSIPS-Users] Contents of ACK in up-to-date RFC 3261

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Robert,

Robert Borz wrote:
> Just had a look at RFC 3261... 269 pages... well, looks for a hard work for one day... but it isn't written to understand and answer my dumb questions within one or two hours. ;)
>   
indeed, the RFC3261 is like a novel :).....
> So, just want to know which contents in an ACK message are allowed in which case...
>
> Especially, I'm interested in which contents in an ACK are allowed in a response to a 200 OK (after INVITE)... is the Proxy-Authorization header field allowed in an ACK as response to a 200 OK of an INVITE?
>   
yes, it is optional - see the RFC3261, section 20.1 , page 163 - Table 3
> Maybe someone read my previous two mails, I'm a little confused right now... 
>
> I detected different behaviour between different UACs, which is nothing unusual for me (I'm just a developer, too).
>
> X-Lite for example includes the digest-credentials in an ACK packet in the Proxy-Authorization header field, whereas the snom-softphone does not.
> The Ekige softphone for windows also includes the Proxy-Authorization header field.
>
> So, which behaviour is standard? It would be great to get any help from you... just to spare the time reading the whole RFC... :-(
>   
well, all are correct, as the header presence in the ACK request is 
optional....

My understanding on the RFC (on the auth matter) is that if the INVITE 
has an "Proxy-Authorization" headers, the ACK should also contain 
one...but it is not a must, it is a recommendation. The idea is, if the 
proxy asked for auth for INVITE, it might ask for the ACK also....but as 
you cannot challenge the ACK, the client should pre-fill the auth in ACK.

Regards,
Bogdan
> <lying>But, I don’t mind reading it...</lying> ;-P
>
>
> Robert.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>