Castillo i...@aliax.net
To: Paul Kyzivat pkyzi...@cisco.com
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Wed, 21 April, 2010 9:56:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme
2010/4/21 Paul Kyzivat pkyzi...@cisco.com:
Rather that considering it hyper-exotic and unfeasible, you could
Iñaki,
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/4/20 Brett Tate br...@broadsoft.com:
section 5.1.1.1:
If all the Contact header fields in a REGISTER request are SIPS, the
UAC MUST use SIPS AORs in the From and To header fields in the
REGISTER request. If at least one of the Contact header
2010/4/21 Paul Kyzivat pkyzi...@cisco.com:
Rather that considering it hyper-exotic and unfeasible, you could just
consider it forward looking.
Yes, I understant. However under my experience forward looking
features of IETF are hyper-exotic and unfeasible features in the
real world.
Let's wait
Hi All,
Sec 8.1.1.8 of RFC 3261 says if the nexhop of the request is SIPS then the
contact should be SIPS.
Does this rule apply to all kinds of request. In particular does this apply to
REGISTER request.
I believe it is strictly applicable to dialog initiating request and ingeneral
all kinds
2010/4/20 Brett Tate br...@broadsoft.com:
section 5.1.1.1:
If all the Contact header fields in a REGISTER request are SIPS, the
UAC MUST use SIPS AORs in the From and To header fields in the
REGISTER request. If at least one of the Contact header fields is
not SIPS (e.g., sip,
