11 nov 2011 kl. 00:58 skrev Hadriel Kaplan:
>
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 3:43 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
>>
>> 8 nov 2011 kl. 15:47 skrev Worley, Dale R (Dale):
>>
>>> In the real world, the "felt need" for security is not "I don't want
>>> the government to find out." but rather "I don't want
On Nov 9, 2011, at 3:43 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 8 nov 2011 kl. 15:47 skrev Worley, Dale R (Dale):
>
>> In the real world, the "felt need" for security is not "I don't want
>> the government to find out." but rather "I don't want my wife to find
>> out."
> :-)
>
> While I agree with wh
Kutay,
Yes, you need to handle this.
Each contact can have its own expiration time setting, which is what you
see here. The way to treat this is to consider the value in the Expires
header (if any) as a default value for every Contact, which is then
overridden by an expires header field parame
> From: Kutay OZDOGRU [kut...@netas.com.tr]
>
> m:
> ;description="Login";expires=84703;
> +sip.instance="";reg-id=1
> ,;expires=0
Formatting that so it is easier to read:
> m:
>
> ;description="Login";expires=84703;+sip.instance="";reg-id=1,
> ;expires=0
What we see is *two* contact URIs, e
Hi all,
I have a sipserver that registers multiple clients to IMS side however,
when my sipserver gets 200 OK message for
De-register as below, it faces confusion because of 2 expire parameters.
m:
;description="Login";expires=84703;
+sip.instance="";reg-id=1
,;expires=0
There is no expire head
8 nov 2011 kl. 22:06 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:
> On 11/08/2011 02:54 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> 2011/11/8 Kevin P. Fleming:
So my web browser (that includes the list of Root CA certificates)
inspects both certificates, realizes that the first one is an
intermediate CA certifica
