Hi Vladimir, thanks for doing this again. Except for the 405 (Method Not Allowed) response, actually pjsip should have responded the error response automatically, and the application shouldn't need to care about doing this. So it's quite strange that it didn't. Could it be that there was other problem with the test (like for example, the tags didn't match the dialog). Some more comments below. Hozjan Vladimir wrote: > > Hi Benny! > > Thank you very much for a fast and detailed reply. From your comments, I > can assume that in most error cases that I send, missunderstanding of > RFC accoured or some implementaion is missing in my application . In > near future I will run test against latest SVN trunk version, and will > notify you about results. I also put some comments below. > > Kind regards, > > Vladimir > >> -----Original Message----- > From: pjsip-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:pjsip-bounces at lists.pjsip.org] On Behalf Of Benny Prijono > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:33 PM > To: pjsip embedded/DSP SIP discussion > Subject: Re: [pjsip] Test result > >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> first of all many thanks for spending your time with doing the test! >> This kind of input is really valuable for us all, and especially >> anything that's related to conformance is guaranteed to get my >> attention. >> >> Please see more comments inline. >> >>> *1. No reply to BYE with escaped sip uri. Session was made without >> What kind of reply does it expect? Or didn't pjsip reply at all? >> >> For requests within dialog, pjsip ignores the URI parts of the From >> and To header, and it just concerns about the tags. As long as the >> tags match the dialog, the request will be accepted and responded, >> no matter what the user part of the URI is. > > Excpected is message 200OK from PJSUA. In that case nothing was send. I > will check my appliaction, if there is a problem. This is strange, as pjsip should handle it. >>> *6. INVITE message with To-tag is not rejected with 481. >>> *Example: >> pjsip *does* respond requests with unknown To tag with 481, so I'm >> not sure why it didn't do that. > > I will check the application. Actually this should have been done by pjsip (the UA/dialog layer), so it's quite strange that pjsip didn't do that. >>> *7. In PJSIP message header are case sensitive. PJSIP doesn't support >> This is not true, pjsip does handle mixed case (or "wrong" case). >> I'm not sure why your test showed different result. > > I'll check this in my application once again. This is also strange, it should be supported. >>> *8.No reply to BYE method if From sip uri contains additional > parameters.* >> As far as pjsip is concerned, requests will be (or should be) >> accepted as long as the tags match the dialog, and I can't see why >> pjsip should reject this request just because it has unknown >> parameters. So in this case, pjsip should process the request and >> respond it, as long as the tags and CSeq are okay. >> > > These BYE message did not produce any reply. 200 OK is expected and > PJSIP should procede normaly. According to your statment I have feeling > that problem is not in PJSIP, but in my applicaton, so I'll search for a > problem there. This is also strange, yet again. So there are many strange things happening there. Things that I expect pjsip to do (without application intervention), didn't happen. Are you sure you're not using old version of pjsip? Will it be possible to re-test with fresh pjsua pulled from SVN trunk? regards, -benny
