El Sábado, 29 de Marzo de 2008, Valentin Nechayev escribió:
> Your example
> (b) is too radical, it's better to compare with something like:
>
> === c)
> INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
> From: alice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; tag=1
> To : white r
El Sábado, 29 de Marzo de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
> Any header which uses the "repeated field separated by comma" format can
> be repeated either via the comma for by multiple instances of the
> header. It spells this out somewhere in 3261.
>
> In theory I think some form of header that doesn'
El Sábado, 29 de Marzo de 2008, Valentin Nechayev escribió:
> > I??aki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, AFAIK reading RFC 3261, using UDP the header Content-Length is not
> > mandatory and if it doesn't appear it's considered 0.
>
> No, if it doesn't appear it's considered un
Any header which uses the "repeated field separated by comma" format can
be repeated either via the comma for by multiple instances of the
header. It spells this out somewhere in 3261.
In theory I think some form of header that doesn't meet that requirement
might also be allowed to be repeated,
> IЯaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> b)
>
> Content-Length:
>
>
> 46
> --
> I??aki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, AFAIK reading RFC 3261, using UDP the header Content-Length is not
> mandatory and if it doesn't appear it's considered 0.
No, if it doesn't appear it's considered undefined and body length
isn't checked. But if it is equal to 0, body is
Hi, AFAIK headers "Via", "Route" and "Record-Route" can appear multiple times
in a message (not just multiples values in each header), for example:
INVITE sip:asdasdasd SIP/2.0
Via: ,
Via: xxx
Via: xxx
...
I don't find in RFC 3261 which exact headers can appear multiple
Jagan Mohan wrote:
> Yes, I agree with what you have said.
> But how should be behavior, if the device receiving the refresh request is a
> B2BUA?
You can do whatever you want, as long as each side of the B2BUA acts
correctly as a UA. Having session timer running on one side does not
obligate
Yes, I agree with what you have said.
But how should be behavior, if the device receiving the refresh request is a
B2BUA?
Thanks,
Jagan
On 3/29/08, Harsha. R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You can increase the Min-SE header in the 200OK to the Session Refresh
> request. AFAIK, this is allowed as
