Hello, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2008/10/2, Dmitry Akindinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> RFC 3262 says clearly that "The provisional response ***MUST establish a >> dialog*** if one is not yet created". >> ... they just refer to the fact that Tables 1 and 2 in rfc3262 extend >> tables 2 and 3 in rfc3261 and the Contact is marked as optional in 1xx >> responses. If 3262 clearly stated that reliable provisional responses MUST >> have Contact - we would not have this issue. >> Yet, how simpler the life would be if rfc3262 (at least) stated clearly >> that with reliable provisional responses the Contact header is required :-) > > Are you sure of the meaning of that Table 1 in RFC 3262? > > Note that RFC 3261 in table 2 says: > > Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG > ___________________________________________________________ > Contact R o - - m o o > Contact 1xx - - - o - - > Contact 2xx - - - m o o > Contact 3xx d - o - o o o > Contact 485 - o - o o o > > For me this means that, in RFC 3261, Contact must be present in a 2xx > to an INVITE.
Yes, but according to this table it's optional for 1xx. And 3262 does not update that, though with reliable 1xx the Contact is more likely to be needed to address the PRACK. > So if we now look at Table 2 in RFC 3262 I see: > > Header field where PRACK > ___________________________________ > Contact R - > Contact 1xx - > Contact 2xx - > Contact 3xx o > Contact 485 o > > For me this means that a Contact header is "not applicable (-)" when > replying to a PRACK, nothing about the 1xx for the INVITE in acse the > 1xx requires "100rel". > -- Best regards, Dmitry Akindinov _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
