Hello Rajaram,

Thanks for your response.

As per my understanding, once the PUBLISH has been succesfully terminated,
any subsequent PUBLISH will be treated as a fresh PUBLICATION, making
the subsequent PUBLISH an initial PUBLISH.
And Sip-If-Match header is optional in that case..

So am still thinking... what will be the signifance of E-tag in a 2xx
for Stop-PUBLISH.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Cheers,
Pankaj

On 4/3/07, Rajaram Tripathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Pankaj,
>           RFC 3903 says SIP-Etag is mandatory in 2xx response for
> PUBLISH. Just check section 11.3, table 6 of RFC 3903
>
> Thanks,
> Rajaram
>
>
> 11.3.  New Header Fields
>
>    Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6 expand on Table 3 in SIP [4], as
>    amended by the changes in Section 11.1.
>
>    +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
>    | Header Field | where | proxy | ACK | BYE | CAN | INF | INV |
>    +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
>    | SIP-ETag     |  2xx  |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |
>    | SIP-If-Match |   R   |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |
>    +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
>
>               Table 4: Summary of header fields, P--Z
>
>    +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
>    | Header Field | where | proxy | NOT | OPT | PRA | REG | SUB |
>    +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
>    | SIP-ETag     |  2xx  |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |
>    | SIP-If-Match |   R   |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |  -  |
>    +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
>
>               Table 5: Summary of header fields, P--Z
>
>     +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+---------+
>     | Header Field | where | proxy | UPD | MSG | REF | PUBLISH |
>     +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+---------+
>     | SIP-ETag     |  2xx  |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |    m    |
>     | SIP-If-Match |   R   |       |  -  |  -  |  -  |    o    |
>     +--------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+---------+
>
>               Table 6: Summary of header fields, P--Z
>
>
>
> Pankaj Munjal wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I had a query regarding Entity tag.
> > Suppose a Client has sent a stop-publish request to stop it's publication,
> > using Expires Header with value '0'.
> > Presence server replies back with a 200 OK indicating that the publication
> > has been successfully terminated.
> > Should this 200 OK contain an Entity tag?
> >
> > There is no section in PUBLISH RFC (3903) that explcitely mandates E-tag
> in
> > such 200 OK.
> >
> > *Section 4.3: Refreshing Event State*
> > *Like the 2xx response to an initial PUBLISH request, the 2xx response to
> a
> > refresh PUBLISH request will contain a SIP-ETag header field
> > with an entity-tag.*
> > **
> > *Section 4.5: Removing Event State*
> > *Note that removing event state is effectively a publication refresh
> > suggesting an infinitesimal expiration interval.Consequently, the
> refreshed
> > event state expires immediately after
> > being refreshed.*
> >
> > Can we conclude from this that the remove(stop) response will also be
> > constructed on the same lines as a refresh response (i.e, having an E-Tag)
> > ??
> >
> > But if we see other sections in the same RFC..
> >
> > *Section 8.2: Client Usage*
> > *"Each successful publication will get assigned an entity-tag which is
> then
> > delivered to the EPA in the response to the PUBLISH request."*
> > **
> > *Section 8.3: Server Usage*
> > *"An entity-tag is generated and stored for each successful event state
> > publication, and returned to the EPA in a 200 (OK) response."*
> >
> > It says that E-tags are generated for each successful publication, however
> > when we send a stop publish request, we are actually deleting this
> > Publication context,
> > so ideally we don't need a new E-tag now at the Client side.
> >
> > Can anyone throw some light on this...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pankaj
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip-implementors mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
> >
> >
>
>
>  The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to
> this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may
> contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not
> the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
> e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this
> message and any attachments.   WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted
> via email. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
> presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused
> by any virus transmitted by this email.   www.wipro.com
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to