Naturally, either way is stupid. The whole idea of putting the transport in a uri param is equally stupid to using 2 different protocol names but since SIP is the descendant of http it they decided to stick with the stupidity of http/https and have sip/sips which is almost as if it was designed to break all software trying to keep up with url syntax. If they are going to insist on using text params you'd think something like transport=foo;security=tls would be even *more* flexable in case alternate methods to encrypt crop up. This is, of course, the first step into a lengthy 12 hour discussion on how stupid SIP and url/text based protocols are. I dare someone to crank up the pcap on a box doing SIP presence for 20 phones and "read" the 1200 byte messages with all kinds of hyeroglyphic url syntax and embedded xml payloads and write up a paper on how much "sense" it makes to have it be "readable". PS supposedly sofia can support sctp, someone should try it. On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Kristian Kielhofner < kkielhofner@star2star.com> wrote:
On 12/1/08, Thomas Troy <ttroy50@gmail.com> wrote: ..snip..
Out of interest do you have any links to anywhere this is discussed in
terms
of general sip implementations?
Uh oh, here we go again...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3969
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2005-August/010047....
Implementation wise, most devices tend to use transport=tls:
SIPFoundry - From what I've seen Snom SERs Asterisk (If you are using TLS) Cisco - I *believe* you can use either a SIPS URI or the transport=tls parameter for various SIP targets
As the RFC (basically) states (RFC3261, section 12.1.x), transport=tls was deprecated in RFC 3261 because you should also be able to do TLS over SCTP (RFC3436), which makes transport=tls a bit ambiguous. sips:user@domain;transport=tcp or sips:user@domain;transport=sctp is a bit more flexible.
I don't know if I've ever seen anything default to SIPS URIs. I also don't think I've ever specifically tried using them. However, my experience with TLS is admittedly somewhat limited so this shouldn't be taken as gospel. As you can see from the discussions on sip-implementors, this gets interesting when different devices are traversing a proxy using different URI schemes...
However, I suspect this won't become an issue until most SIP implementations support SCTP. That should be exciting! ;)
-- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
-- Anthony Minessale II FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/ AIM: anthm MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com <MSN%3Aanthony_minessale@hotmail.com> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com<PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale@gmail.com> IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org <sip%3A888@conference.freeswitch.org> iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888 googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org<googletalk%3Aconf%2B888@conference.freeswitch.org> pstn:213-799-1400