To follow up to Paul's message, the situation of an empty and/or missing
body is not well-specified in SIP, and a SIP parser should be careful to
"be liberal in what you accept". In particular, if the observed or
specified content length is zero, it *might* be that there is no body,
or it *might*
On 12/7/18 5:12 AM, Hamza Mohamed Salman wrote:
Dear,
Good Day.
The trace result shows that The 480 arrives to the node, and it is rejected
(dropped) because there is a fault in the message. The following is seen in the
communication buffer of the TEST SYSTEM trace we receive yesterday.
Dear,
Good Day.
The trace result shows that The 480 arrives to the node, and it is rejected
(dropped) because there is a fault in the message. The following is seen in the
communication buffer of the TEST SYSTEM trace we receive yesterday.
SIP/2.0 480 Temporarily Unavailable
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
The discussion was of the presence or absence of type and not length.
Yes, Content-Length has restrication based on transport used.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Dale Worley dwor...@nortel.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 16:16 -0700, Vikram Chhibber wrote:
For the above context, yes, we
I disagree with the notion that you should include C-T:application/sdp
and C-L:0 to indicate no offer. In fact, I think it is probably invalid
to do so.
There are at least a couple of issues with that:
- If you specify a C-T, then the body needs to conform to the
specification for that type.
Thanks Paul. This is really good explanation.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Paul Kyzivat pkyzi...@cisco.com wrote:
I disagree with the notion that you should include C-T:application/sdp and
C-L:0 to indicate no offer. In fact, I think it is probably invalid to do
so.
There are at least a
Hi,
Does anyone have any suggestions as to under what circumstances you would
consider including a Content-Type: header when your Content-Length: is zero?
3261 gives the following example in section 20.15:
If the body is empty, and a Content-Type header field is present, it
indicates that the
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 16:21 +0100, Kevin Spencer wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions as to under what circumstances you would
consider including a Content-Type: header when your Content-Length: is zero?
3261 gives the following example in section 20.15:
I don't know of any current
Dave,
Thanks, thats clear from the point of view of the arbitrary binary body.
Vikram,
But in the case where no offer is made in the initial INVITE surely there is
no need to indicate a content-type at that stage (it may not be known at
that point?), for example the Session via Redirect and Proxy
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Kevin Spencer
spenk.l...@googlemail.com wrote:
Dave,
Thanks, thats clear from the point of view of the arbitrary binary body.
Vikram,
But in the case where no offer is made in the initial INVITE surely there is
no need to indicate a content-type at that stage
10 matches
Mail list logo
