Nigel, It is not likely that not putting a tag breaks interoperability, but the text in RFC3261 is pretty clear on this point.
Regards, Jeroen Smith, Nigel (Com US) wrote: > RFC 3261 Section 8.2.6.2 Headers and Tags > ----------------------------------------- > > Is anyone aware of a reason for the MUST in the following text from > RFC 3261: > > " the UAS MUST add a tag to the To header field in the response (with > the exception of the 100 (Trying) response, in which a tag MAY be > present) " > > If the response does not establish a dialog (e.g. 200OK response to > REGISTER request) then what purpose does the tag in the To header > serve ? > > Should the text be: > > " the UAS MUST add a tag to the To header field in the response (with > the exception of the 100 (Trying) response or a final response that > does establish a dialog, in which a tag MAY be present) " > > Thanks, > > Nigel Smith > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
