2010/6/16 Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com>: > Am I misreading 3261 Section 22.3? > > > If a proxy were to resubmit a request adding a > Proxy-Authorization header field value, it would need > to increment the CSeq in the new request. However, this > would cause the UAC that submitted the original request to > discard a response from the UAS, as the CSeq value would > be different.
I didn't remember such section in RFC 3261. IMHO it's really a dirty hack and I cannot understand how it can be published in the standard. > Since the proxy is the authentication actor, I assumed this is how it should > be done. On the other hand, if the purpose of the UAC module is to "spoof" > a challenge response as if it really came from the UAC, I suppose this is > not appropriate. That's exactly what I meant :) -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> _______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
