I just realized this is ambiguous... Technically 2543 defined "SIP 2.0" but "SIP 2.0" behavior today is generally considered to be 3261 compliant, not 2543 compliant although you still run into 2543 behavior in various ways and it's not necessarily "wrong". On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Kristian Kielhofner <kris@kriskinc.com> wrote:
RFC3261 defines SIP 2.0. 2543 is deprecated. 3261 section 8.1.1.4 says:
"Use of cryptographically random identifiers (RFC 1750 [12]) in the generation of Call-IDs is RECOMMENDED. Implementations MAY use the form "localid@host". Call-IDs are case-sensitive and are simply compared byte-by-byte."
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Kurtis Heimerl <kheimerl@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
According to the sip standard, call-ids should have a "host" trailer (e.g., f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6@foo.bar.com)
Reference: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2543.txt Section 6.12
FreeSwitch doesn't do this, omitting the "@foo.bar.com" portion of the above. Is there any reason why this is the case? This seems too large of an issue to be a bug or oversight.
Here's an example from a FS MESSAGE:
Call-ID: 000b3694-76e4-122f-55b3-5cff350d9de5
_______________________________________________ Join us at ClueCon 2011, Aug 9-11, Chicago http://www.cluecon.com 877-7-4ACLUE
FreeSWITCH-dev mailing list FreeSWITCH-dev@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-dev UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-dev http://www.freeswitch.org
-- Kristian Kielhofner
-- Kristian Kielhofner