> I haven't dug through the specifications. But if they have the
> same Call-ID, then the CSeq tells the order the REGISTERs are
> to have effect. If the network reorders them, the de-REGISTER
> will prevail because it has a higher CSeq.
My current understanding is that it depends upon
Paul Kyzivat writes:
> Another consideration is whether these are done using the same Call-ID.
> (In the same pseudo-dialog.) I don't think it will generally make any
> difference, but it may present issues if you are also requesting a
> temporary gruu with the
On 6/28/17 1:11 AM, Parveen Aggarwal wrote:
Dear Expert,
Is it valid to send deRegister request i.e. REGISTER with expires=0 before
receiving final response for previous registration request i.e. REGISTER
with expires >0 ?
As per RFC 3261,
It is mentioned for new REGISTER request only
UAs
)
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Sending deRegister request just after sending
REGISTER request
Thanks Srinivas for reply.
Is there any specification which restricts to send REGISTER with expires=0
before receiving final response of REGISTER with expires
dnesday, June 28, 2017 10:41 AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Sending deRegister request just after sending
> REGISTER request
>
> Dear Expert,
>
> Is it valid to send deRegister request i.e. REGISTER with expires=0 before
> receiving fi
oun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Parveen
Aggarwal
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 10:41 AM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Sending deRegister request just after sending
REGISTER request
Dear Exp
Dear Expert,
Is it valid to send deRegister request i.e. REGISTER with expires=0 before
receiving final response for previous registration request i.e. REGISTER
with expires >0 ?
As per RFC 3261,
It is mentioned for new REGISTER request only
UAs MUST NOT send a new registration (that is,