Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Caller preferences for FToHTTP or Geoloc #237

Open
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Jun 30, 2015 · 3 comments
Open

Caller preferences for FToHTTP or Geoloc #237

GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Jun 30, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Register A(blackbird) and B(albatros)
2. A sends an INVITE with FToHTTP content to B

What is the expected output?
B should not receive INVITE request (blocked by IMS Core according to features 
provided in B's REGISTER)

What do you see instead?
B receives invite request because fthttp feature in header Accept-Contact does 
not have explicit/require tags as described in RFC3841. packet 48 in attachment.


What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
RI 2.5.15

Please provide any additional information below.
Same behaviour expected for Geoloc invite.


Original issue reported on code.google.com by rcs.capg...@gmail.com on 4 Mar 2014 at 9:28

Attachments:

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

This use case is not valid.
The stack check the capacity of the remote. If FToHTTP is not supported, 
invitation is not sent.

Original comment by lemordan...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2014 at 2:01

  • Changed state: Invalid

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

The use case is valid in a multidevices context.
B is registered with a B1 blackbird, and B2 albatros.

The stack sends invite FToHTTP to B. => FToHTTP INVITE sent to B1 and B2.

explicit/require tags must be set.

Original comment by jeanmari...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2014 at 2:07

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by lemordan...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2014 at 3:22

  • Changed state: New

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant