On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 12:05 +0530, Pandurangan R S wrote: > Hi, > > Registrar and proxy (say responsible for domain XYZ) are co-located > (say node A). Since node A acts the registrar, it also terminates > SUBSCRIBEs for event "reg" for the requests containing request uri as > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SUBSCRIBEs for other "events" will be forwarded by the > proxy to the registered contacts for the AoR. > > Now when node A receives an OPTIONS request targeted to it (request > uri sip:XYZ) and generates 200 OK to it, should it include > "allow-events: reg" header field?
If possible, yes. > As per RFC 3265 sec 3.3.7-> "Allow-Events" headers MUST NOT be > inserted by proxies. > > But I think the above quote applies to a proxy when it forwards a > request, instead of terminating the request on its own (in which case > it is acting as a UA for that request) Right. > I think the proxy should include the "allow-events" header in 200 OK > OPTIONS generated by it. But i would like to confirm/check this > behavior. Thanks for any clarification provided. Application-specific routing like this is one of the reasons why OPTIONS is an imperfect probe of the capabilities of a remote system. In my experience, it's fairly reliable when used in-dialog, but when used out of a dialog you really can't be sure that the OPTIONS is going to be handled by the same endpoint that would handle some other request. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
