Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Bob Penfield <bpenfi...@acmepacket.com>:
>> If there are no binding remaining, the 200 OK does not need to have a
>> Contact header. A 200-OK response without any Contacts indicates that there
>> are no bindings.
>
> Please Bob, read the *oficially* reported bug about this subject which
> had a long discussion some time ago:
> http://bugs.sipit.net/show_bug.cgi?id=775
>
> Basically, what you suggest (even if it should be the correct
> approach) is not what RFC 3261 states:
>
> ---------------
> 10.3 Processing REGISTER Requests
>
> The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain
> Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings.
> ---------------
I agree with Bob that there is no bug. Its how you parse the English
that matters.
If there are no bindings, then a response with no contacts fulfills the
requirement that it "MUST contain Contact header field values
enumerating all current bindings." It does indeed contain a Contact
header field for each and every current binding.
IMO this is preferred to an alternative approach, which would also
conform to the current text - include a Contact header with the Contact
in the request, with an expires=0 parameter on it. I think I have heard
of that being done by some implementations, and it confuses some other
implementations, though they ought to be tolerant of it.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
