[Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation

[Jan Janak]

On 08-03 08:53, Jain, Rajnish wrote:
> Jan,
> I'm not much familiar w/ SER and at this point I've actually
> unsubscribed from this mailing list, but consider the following:
> 
> You're right in storing the NAT's IP address and port in your location
> database and then later sending the SIP message to that address.
> However, why even have an option that results in the 200 OK for the
> REGISTER to be constructed incorrectly (that is w/ the NAT's IP/port as
> Contact). 

  Because you still need the function to rewrite the contacts of INVITE,
  SUBSCRIBE and other messages.
 
> If the user fails to set the option (fix_nated_register), what are we
> going to gain by putting NAT's address in 200 OK's Contact? 
>
> Why not have
> the 200 OK always carry the correct Contacts? 

  Although it is not entirely correct, it works fine in many cases.
  fix_nated_contact is not going to dissapear anyway, because it is
  needed in other cases.
    
    Jan.