Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@cisco.com>:
>> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>
>
>> I agree with Bob that there is no bug. Its how you parse the English that
>> matters.
>
> Paul, I think that the bug is the ambiguity in the specification. You
> understand some thing, while others understand a different meaning.
> IMHO there *is* a bug.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> An UA can send a REGISTER with no "Contact" header in order to get the
> locations for its AoR. This REGISTER *doesn't* contain "Contact"
> headers.
> If this AoR is not registered, the how to compose the "200 OK"? The
> REGISTER has no "Contact" so your suggestion above fails.
We are picking over nits. The proposed change to the wording in the bug
just makes it clearer that you can return a response with no contacts
when there are no contacts registered. IMO the *current* wording allows
returning no Contacts when there are none registered.
I agree that returning a Contact with expires=0 isn't a good option if
there aren't any contacts in the REGISTER request.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
