see my comments..
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Aymeric MOIZARD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 12:34 PM
> > To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP/Helsinki)
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] tag in REGISTER?
> >
> >
> > So no tag should appear in the "from" and "to" header, right?
>
> Section 8 talks about how UAC and UAS behave independent of the METHOD. Section
>8.1.1.3 says the From field MUST contain a new tag. So you're wrong.
what about draft-ietf-sip-call-flows-05.txt? I think when
it was out, the tag was already mandatory in From headers?
> > So draft-ietf-sip-call-flows-05.txt is up to date and
> > also the registrar does not add a tag in the answer, right again?
>
> wrong again. section 8.2.6.2 states that a UAS MUST add a tag in the To
> header field in the response if one didn't exist in the request.
This again does not help. I'm trying to figure out which sentence
is inconsistent with the others:
Here is the solution you propose:
REGISTER sip:domain.org SIP/2.0
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=23DZ3434
the answer is
200 OK
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=23DZ3434
Asking again my question:
rfc3543bis-08 says:
From: The From header field contains the address-of-record of
the person responsible for the registration. The value is
the same as the To header field unless the request is a
third-party registration.
You are assuming that the word "value" refer to address of record
and not to the "from header feild".
I'm not sure you are true as draft-ietf-sip-call-flows-05.txt seems
to assume that the From field is a EXACT copy of the To feild instead
of having the exact copy of the address of record.
> Remember, section 8 talks about UA behaviour independent of methods.
> That includes REGISTER.
So, can anybody tell me if draft-ietf-sip-call-flows-05.txt is wrong?
in case it's wrong, then the text in 10.2 should be:
From: The From header field contains the address-of-record of
the person responsible for the registration. The value is
the same as the **address of record of the*** To header
field
unless the request is a third-party registration.
Thanks
Aymeric
> Regards,
> Hisham
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Aymeric
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually you missed the word "address-of-record". Its
> > talking about that.
> > >
> > > section 10.2 says "From: The From header field contains the
> > address-of-record of
> > > the person responsible for the registration.
> > The value is
> > > the same as the To header field unless the request is a
> > > third-party registration."
> > >
> > > You can look up the address-of-record definition in section
> > 6. You will find that its a SIP(S) URI.
> > > Regards,
> > > Hisham Khartabil
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ext Aymeric MOIZARD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:47 AM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] tag in REGISTER?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > This are taken out of bis-08:
> > > >
> > > > "8.1.1.3 From" which is valid for REGISTER says:
> > > >
> > > > "The From field MUST contain a new "tag" parameter,
> > chosen by the
> > > > UAC.
> > > > See Section 19.3 for details on choosing a tag."
> > > >
> > > > Section "10.2 Constructing the REGISTER Request" says
> > > >
> > > > "From: The value is he same as the To header field
> > unless the
> > > > request is a third-party registration."
> > > >
> > > > Note that this sentence means that we "copy" the To header and
> > > > the To header does not contains TAG!
> > > >
> > > > Section 10.2 say nothing about tags and the draft
> > > > draft-ietf-sip-call-flows-05.txt shows REGISTER request
> > > > without any tag in the to and from fields.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm testing a SIP phone that includes 2 differents tags
> > > > in the "From" and "To" headers?
> > > >
> > > > 1 solution:
> > > > rfc2543-08 does not mandate tag in The To header. (in request like
> > > > register)
> > > > rfc2543-08 mandate to copy the to header in the from field for
> > > > registration.
> > > > (so the to header does not include tag???)
> > > >
> > > > This is not compliant with section 8.1.1.3
> > > >
> > > > 2 solution:
> > > > rfc2543-08 does not mandate tag in The To header
> > > > rfc2543-08 mandate to copy the to header in the from field for
> > > > registration.
> > > > rfc2543-08 mandate tag in The From header so we add a tag.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, the sentence in section "10.2 Constructing
> > the REGISTER
> > > > Request"
> > > > saying that the from is a copy of the to is not true any
> > > > more because
> > > > a tag has been added!
> > > >
> > > > 3 solution: (choosen by the SIP phone I'm testing.)
> > > > The To and From feild contains 2 different tag in the from and to.
> > > >
> > > > Again, From is not a copy of To... and the To contains
> > a tag which
> > > > appears to be strange??
> > > >
> > > > 4 solution: (I don't think it's valid, but it's better
> > than solution 3
> > > > :)
> > > > The To and From contains the same tag. From is a copy of the To.
> > > >
> > > > Issue: the To contains a tag which appears to be strange??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What's the solution choosed for rfc2543-08?
> > > > I'm sure solution 1 is valid because of rfc2543 backward
> > > > compatibility.
> > > > What about the two other solutions.
> > > >
> > > > Also, should we add a tag in the final response if the To header
> > > > does not contains one?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Aymeric
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Sip-implementors mailing list
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
> > > >
> >
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
