On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Harsha. R [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
... they just refer to the fact that Tables 1 and 2 in rfc3262 extend
tables 2 and 3 in rfc3261 and the Contact is marked as optional in 1xx
responses. If 3262 clearly stated that reliable provisional responses
MUST have
2008/10/2, Harsha. R [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Its not clear to me as to why the 18X is expecting a Contact. The purpose of
Contact is to do a target refresh.
18X missing a Contact header means a target refresh has not happened. In
this case, address the PRACK to
the original remote target(
Hello,
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2008/10/2, Dmitry Akindinov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
RFC 3262 says clearly that The provisional response ***MUST establish a
dialog*** if one is not yet created.
... they just refer to the fact that Tables 1 and 2 in rfc3262 extend
tables 2 and 3 in rfc3261 and
2008/10/2, Dmitry Akindinov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For me this means that, in RFC 3261, Contact must be present in a 2xx
to an INVITE.
Yes, but according to this table it's optional for 1xx. And 3262 does not
update that, though with reliable 1xx the Contact is more likely to be
needed to
Harsha. R wrote:
... they just refer to the fact that Tables 1 and 2 in rfc3262 extend
tables 2 and 3 in rfc3261 and the Contact is marked as optional in 1xx
responses. If 3262 clearly stated that reliable provisional responses
MUST have Contact - we would not have this issue
Its not
Hello,
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2008/10/2, Dmitry Akindinov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For me this means that, in RFC 3261, Contact must be present in a 2xx
to an INVITE.
Yes, but according to this table it's optional for 1xx. And 3262 does not
update that, though with reliable 1xx the Contact is
Hello,
I have a question on rfc 3262. The document lists the Contact header as
optional in 18x provisional responses that require reliable handling
(Require: 100rel).
On the other hand, the document states that PRACK is like any other
request within a dialog, and the UAS core processes it
El Miércoles, 1 de Octubre de 2008, Dmitry Akindinov escribió:
We have a long argument with a SIP vendor who insists that Contact
header is optional in provisional responses - even those that require
reliable handling, according to rfc3262
A note more about it:
In RFC 3261 the Contact is
Hello,
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
El Miércoles, 1 de Octubre de 2008, Dmitry Akindinov escribió:
Hello,
I have a question on rfc 3262. The document lists the Contact header as
optional in 18x provisional responses that require reliable handling
(Require: 100rel).
Have you ever seen a 1XX
