Deepak, The example in section 24.1 is as per the section 10.2.1 since this section refers only to the REGISTER message sent by the client. However the response message (F2) in section 24.1 is not inline with section 10.3 (para 8) where it mandates the presence of "expires" parameter for each Contact in the 200 OK response sent by the Registrar Regards Ajay
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deepak Kumar Mawandia Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:35 AM To: sip-implementors Subject: [Sip-implementors] Expires Header in 200OK Response of REGISTER Ajay, Please Refer to Section 10.2.1 of RFC 3261 Setting the Expiration Interval of Contact Addresses There are two ways in which a client can suggest an expiration interval for a binding: through an Expires header field or an expires Contact header parameter. The latter allows expiration intervals to be suggested on a per-binding basis when more than one binding is given in a single REGISTER request, whereas the former suggests an expiration interval for all Contact header field values that do not contain the expires parameter. If neither mechanism for expressing a suggested expiration time is present in a REGISTER, the client is indicating its desire for the server to choose. So the example in section 24.1 seems to be correct in regards to section 10.2.1 With regards, Deepak *********************** FSS-Private *********************** _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
