[sr-dev] TLS: Sip-Routers adds a Record-Route with "sip" scheme rather than "sips"

[Olle E. Johansson]

6 jul 2011 kl. 13.39 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:

> 2011/7/6 Olle E. Johansson <oej at edvina.net>:
>>> Also, I've already make a question previously: you say that
>>> "transport=tls" is correct, so is "tls-sctp" also correct? RFC 4168
>>> (SIP over SCTP) defines "SCTP" and "TLS-SCTP" for Via transport,
>>> similar to "TCP" and "TLS" (which means TCP over TLS). But RFC 4168
>>> does not define "tls-sctp" for an URI transport param. Why not?
>>> because the correct way is "sips" schema and ";transport=sctp".
>> 
>> THis is defined according to RFC5630:
>>  For Via header fields, the following transport protocols are defined
>>   in [RFC3261]: "UDP", "TCP", "TLS", "SCTP", and in [RFC4168]: "TLS-
>>   SCTP".
> 
> Transport in Via header and transport in SIP URI header are different
> things. In the RFC 3261 BNF they appear as different elements. The
> fact that some values match doesn't mean that are equivalent in both
> sides.
> 
> Said that, this stuf becomes more and more complex due to this fact:
> this is: Via transport accepts "TLS" or "TLS-SCTP" while ;transport
> does not.

I missed that we ahve two different name spaces. Ouch.

Wonder if anyone has tried using this. Seems like you either build a non-tls network or a TLS-network where you implement TLS by mandate and don't bother with SIP or SIPS uri's.

So what does Kamailio say if I have SIPS target URI and my NAPTR doesn't have any entries for TLS?

/O