>> I think this should be treated as malformed header field for ACK request >> ( It is not expected to be included in ACK ) and thus should be ingored
I think the header is well formed (grammatically correct), but it has no sementics in ACK message. On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Singh, Indresh (NSN - US/Boca Raton) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Robert w.r.t to best results for inter-operability, > > I think this should be treated as malformed header field for ACK request > ( It is not expected to be included in ACK ) and thus should be ingored > > 8.2.2 Header Inspection > > If a UAS does not understand a header field in a request (that is, > the header field is not defined in this specification or in any > supported extension), the server MUST ignore that header field and > continue processing the message. A UAS SHOULD ignore any malformed > header fields that are not necessary for processing requests. > > Regards, > > Indresh > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >>Behalf Of ext Robert Sparks > >>Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:51 AM > >>To: kavitha.subramaniam > >>Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > >>Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] FW: Require: 100rel in ACK > >> > >>Without looking at the specs, here's what I believe they say (I'll > >>chase down text later if you really need me to). > >>In any case, this is what you should do for maximum interoperability: > >> > >>Don't put Require: 100rel in an ACK. > >>Don't get upset if someone else does - ignore it. > >> > >>RjS > >> > >>On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:11 AM, kavitha.subramaniam wrote: > >> > >>> Hi All, > >>> I have got a question about Require: 100rel in ACK Request. > >>> > >>> Presence of Require: 100rel header in ACK request is allowed? > >>> > >>> RFC 3262 says "A Require header with the value 100rel MUST NOT be > >>> present in any requests excepting INVITE, although > >>extensions to SIP > >>> may allow its usage with other request methods". > >>> > >>> > >>> In RFC 3261 it is mentioned that "An ACK request for a 2xx > >>response > >>> MUST contain only those Require and Proxy-Require values that were > >>> present in the initial request". > >>> > >>> My question is: > >>> Both the statements are contradicting. Which one should be taken? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Kavitha. > >>> > >>> > >>> "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is > >>intended > >>> solely for the use of > >>> the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain > >>privileged or > >>> confidential information and should not be > >>> circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is > >>> intended. If you have received this message in error, > >>> please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the > >>> intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly > >>> prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the > >>contents > >>> of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for > >>> loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted > >>> by this email including damage from virus." > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Sip-implementors mailing list > >>> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > >>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Sip-implementors mailing list > >>Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > >>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > >> > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
