Hi all, Are there any news with respect to increasing CSeq feature? I search the bug list but I could not find one related to to this issue.
Regards, Ovidiu Sas On 1/10/07, Andreas Heise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bogdan, yes with the "fix" suggested by Thomas works with some proxies.... I hope that real qop support and CSeq feature will be define as todo for the next roadmap instead of nice to have, because uac_auth is really needed often. greetings from Berlin, Andreas Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb: > Hi Andreas, > > yes, that is true - is a bit of complicated to calculate the response > when qop is on. Have you tried the approach suggested by Thomas? to > completely ignore the qop from challenge and to send the response as > if no qop was received...... > > regards, > bogdan > > Andreas Heise wrote: > >> >> I've make some tests to deeper understand qop, for this I've modify >> the auth_hdr.c to >> ignore the qop and add a static qop=auth to the outgoing >> authorization header, but this >> way wasn't successful. >> After review of RFC 2617 I found that in case of qop cnonce and >> nonce-count (nc) MUST >> send by the client so it's not so easy as expected. >> >> Andreas >> >> >> Andreas Heise schrieb: >> >>> >>> Hi Bogdan, >>> >>> I think for the qop it could solved very quickly if only the auth >>> method will be implemented first, >>> because the Digest for auth should be the same as without qop >>> (unspecified) see page 14 >>> in the following example.... >>> >>> >>> http://www.softarmor.com/wgdb/docs/draft-smith-sip-auth-examples-00.txt >>> >>> so it should work as follow.... >>> >>> if qop is detected, parse qop value if "auth" is allowed, if yes >>> send Authenticated Request as without qop, >>> but add qop="auth" or qop=auth ?! ........if *only* auth-int is >>> allowed goto error as before ;-( >>> >>> This should make a lot of users happy...... >>> >>> Am I right? Is it possible for somebody to do this soon ;-) >>> >>> regards, >>> Andreas >>> >>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu >>> Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:14:51 -0800 >>> >>> Hi Klaus, Hi Stefano, >>> >>> >>> fixes to these limitations are scheduled to be done, but I'm afraid >>> they will not be ready for the next release - more time consuming >>> things are on the roll and I personally prefer to finish them before >>> attacking something new... >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bogdan >>> >>> Klaus Darilion wrote: >>> >>> >>> Stefano Capitanio wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> i would like to ask if the two known limitations of >>> UAC Module >>> (authentication does not support qop; CSeq not increased during >>> authentication) will be resolved in future releases and if >>> anyone has developed a patch or is working on it. >>> I wonder if the dialog module can be used to keep track of >>> the CSeq >>> difference between the SIPclient-->openser and >>> openser--->upstreamSIPcomponent and modify all messages on the fly? >>> Or another idea - would i be possible to store the Cseq difference >>> in the record route parameter of uac module too? >>> >>> regards >>> klaus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Devel mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel >> > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
