From: =?iso-8859-1?q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes, but there is a section in which I think there is not justification:
But RFC 3261 says:
-
10.2 Constructing the REGISTER Request
Contact: REGISTER requests MAY contain a Contact header
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Robert Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In case there's any doubt still, the correct thing to return if there
> are no bindings against the AoR is a 200 OK with no Contact header
> field.
Thanks for the clarification Robert.
What really confused me is:
"The reg
There are other places where having the header field present with no
value vs having no header field present is not as clear in the text as
it could be,
In this particular case (Contact header field in register responses),
I can see the issue you are pointing to, and will capture it in the
El Jueves, 11 de Septiembre de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> Whether the wording of the RFC needs to be corrected depends on the
> precise usage of the words.
>
> The confusion arises because the RFC presupposes the concept that for
> certain headers, the *list* of values in all of the heade
From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Victor_Pascual_=C3=81vila?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RFC3261, Section 10.3- Step 8 says:
"The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST
contain Contact header field values enumerating all current
bindings."
Whether the wording of the RFC needs to be cor
@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Fetching Bindings
Hello,
> El Jueves, 11 de Septiembre de 2008, Victor Pascual Ávila escribió:
>> Scenario: a SIP UA is not registered and it sends a REGISTER request
>> without Contact header.
>>
>> A success respo
Hello,
> El Jueves, 11 de Septiembre de 2008, Victor Pascual Ávila escribió:
>> Scenario: a SIP UA is not registered and it sends a REGISTER request
>> without Contact header.
>>
>> A success response to any REGISTER request contains the complete list
>> of existing bindings, regardless of whethe
El Jueves, 11 de Septiembre de 2008, Somesh S. Shanbhag escribió:
> Hi,
>
> The "current bindings" in RFC section quoted, does mean
> "If Bindings for this AOR exists".
> I mean, if bindings for the specified AOR exists, then its termed as
> "current" bindings. The RFC text is correct.
Well, I don
El Jueves, 11 de Septiembre de 2008, Victor Pascual Ávila escribió:
> Scenario: a SIP UA is not registered and it sends a REGISTER request
> without Contact header.
>
> A success response to any REGISTER request contains the complete list
> of existing bindings, regardless of whether the request co
inal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Victor Pascual Ávila
Sent: Thu 9/11/2008 2:41 PM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Fetching Bindings
Scenario: a SIP UA is not registered and it sends a REGISTER request
without Contact header.
A success re
Scenario: a SIP UA is not registered and it sends a REGISTER request
without Contact header.
A success response to any REGISTER request contains the complete list
of existing bindings, regardless of whether the request contained a
Contact header field.
Contact cannot be empty:
Contact = ( "Con
11 matches
Mail list logo
