Hi Rayees Couldn't the fact that many UAs still recognize the Contact stem from the fact that sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] was considered to be equal to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060 in RFC2543 and the difference was only introduced in RFC 3261?
And there's a bit I missed in my last message: 19.1.4 also requires matching transport, ttl and user parameters and in my case the UA gave a transport parameter, but the Contact in the response did not include the transport. Shouldn't the reply contain the following Contact header for full RFC 3261 compliance: Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];transport=UDP>;expires=360 (I added the brackets because the transport requires a semicolon in the URI and then according to 20.10 you have to use the brackets even if no display name is present) Regards Stephan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rayees Khan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephan Steiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:26 PM Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Contact matching in registration Hi Stephan, It appears that both the messages are valid syntatically. Since absense of port in a sip-URI is assmed to mean 5060 and absence of transport parameter is assumed to be UDP, the AOR in REGISTER and 200 OK do match. In my opinion, UA should have found the matching AOR in contact header valid for 360 seconds. To be frank I have experience this matching of AOR with and with :5060 a number of times. regards Rayees _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
