You betcha!
cool goose wrote:
> Is it mentioned somewhere in the RFC 3261 about building SIP packets ?
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Dale Worley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 20:15 -0800, cool goose wrote:
>>> I am writing small application which sends a REGISTER m
Hi All,
I am planning to write a small program that sends REGISTER message to and
registrar and receives 200 Ok. I have a question on building SIP messages:
Can I build a SIP message in text format and send it as a string over
UDP/TCP sockets or do I need to convert it into a UTF-8 format and then
Is it mentioned somewhere in the RFC 3261 about building SIP packets ?
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Dale Worley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 20:15 -0800, cool goose wrote:
> > I am writing small application which sends a REGISTER message to a
> registrar
> > and in turn r
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 20:15 -0800, cool goose wrote:
> I am writing small application which sends a REGISTER message to a registrar
> and in turn receives a 200 OK. My application reads all the details for the
> REGISTER message from an XML file and uses UDP sockets to send the data to
> registrar.
Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Yes, it would be possible to do as you suggest. But I think there
> would be very little priority to doing so.
>
> In the absence of a suitable specific header, an 400 is what you are
> left with. If you combine that with a specific reason-phrase that
> identifies the issu
Yes, it would be possible to do as you suggest. But I think there would
be very little priority to doing so.
In the absence of a suitable specific header, an 400 is what you are
left with. If you combine that with a specific reason-phrase that
identifies the issue, then at least it will be unde
I agree with all Dale has said on this.
Adding to that - it is also possible that there is *another* device that
is sending register or unregister requests for the *same* contacts as
your UA. Its not a *likely* scenario in most cases, but it is
*possible*. This can lead to all sorts of odd stat
Rockson Li (zhengyli) wrote:
>I think 415 is too specific, there's no limitation in RFC3261 that 400
>is only applicable to msg headers.
>
I think this question is a subject of SIP working groups. Any decision
we can invent will be doubtful and nonstandard. My vision is that SIP WG
should intro
