Hello,
I have a question on rfc 3262. The document lists the Contact header as
optional in 18x provisional responses that require reliable handling
(Require: 100rel).
On the other hand, the document states that "PRACK is like any other
request within a dialog, and the UAS core processes it according to
the procedures of Sections 8.2 and 12.2.2 of RFC 3261."
But shouldn't in-dialog requests be addressed to the remote peer URI,
that is normally carried in the Contact: header? So, shouldn't the
Contact header be marked as required for the provisional responses that
require reliable handling? Otherwise an UAC would not be able to address
the PRACK request properly.
I searched this list archives and found this topic has been touched earlier:
<https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2004-March/006321.html>
We have a long argument with a SIP vendor who insists that Contact
header is optional in provisional responses - even those that require
reliable handling, according to rfc3262. But that breaks logic in our
code where early dialogs set up with reliable provisional responses are
treated as normal dialogs; as the result the PRACK requests _needs_ to
be sent as in-dialog request and addressed to the remote peer URI.
We'd rather to avoid creating vendor-specific workarounds in our code,
as it works with reliable responses sent by other SIP end-points. So, I
hope to get here some opinion to back up our position in this argument :-)
Thank you all in advance,
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Akindinov
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
