Re: [dispatch] Fwd: sip ue-addr contact hdr parameter

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 11 October 2019 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF0512003E for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.684
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pmTJ4aZWWNoJ for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CE17120041 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.99]) by resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id Ij8bijuV3et2yIjT7iSN8q; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:11:45 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1570756305; bh=PyVp96pYi/nXCaLppGPVRjNlSk+5PkdaqwPNiVXX6kE=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=GJkENTdTrOwapKAcA+WrQRzmTL93mI0YXP9QKLu5ssp+wLLLkuy45Irlo16G5TUIa 32YGy0CL7hybaVKRxS1ChUuWLQMOYCdSlIbuYw/NYcdT5lzvgkOH1hPhITgPOgXylG rIHfTMWKDF+mcyEZqiY/8qbM08GCThePg9wbkV7kTH9gsnAaN1GfrAn23EGcIPvE9t lSMklsohyqpdi4A2avc4BJFtRWyq3WgW2nPnJLOXYEvh35BziJqH0ok5xndYZIsaH9 gTC148798Q9F5gjJxdgmclLodSCjJYr5eRv5DhtRm18GIRVB8JRpv+bzgNpJ6UoET+ LLaKhk6tliXhw==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4600:1e00:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id IjT5iCyjhyhXHIjT6irfAg; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:11:44 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x9B1BgkM001480; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 21:11:42 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id x9B1BgJE001477; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 21:11:42 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: Ranjit Avasarala <ranjitkav12@gmail.com>
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAFXT-ptARjgFSFnKyqfaKUDX-=3+01sWm9uEyWcEL0xJP1Q+-Q@mail.gmail.com> (ranjitkav12@gmail.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 21:11:41 -0400
Message-ID: <87lftsozle.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/onAhnynmsBH_dUS2Uy9PUawcjRg>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: sip ue-addr contact hdr parameter
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:11:47 -0000

Ranjit Avasarala <ranjitkav12@gmail.com> writes:
> I am looking for an I-D or RFC that describes the syntax and behaviour of
> proxies receiving ue-addr parameter in SIP INVITE and when they do and do
> not forward it further

In regard to parameters in the URI in the *request* line, the RFCs give
a device complete flexibility in regard to how they modify that URI
before forwarding the request.

In regard to the *Contact* headers, proxies aren't supposed to modify
those at all.  However "B2BUAs" can have arbitrary behavior.

Dale