> On 16 Aug 2018, at 16:44, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On 8/16/18 1:21 AM, Sreekanth wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 08:31, Dale R. Worley <wor...@ariadne.com> wrote: >>> Sreekanth <sknt...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I am going through the SIP RFC (3261) and couldn't find anything >>> specified >>>> regarding the 401 Unauthorized challenge response from the UAS side >>> during >>>> a registration. >>>> >>>> I wanted to confirm whether it is okay to add a *Require *header into >>> this >>>> 401 Unauthorized message response. >>> >>> What would be the point? The concept of a Require header is "the UAS is >>> required to reject the request (420) if it doesn't understand the >>> option-tag". If a *response* had a Require header, either the UAC >>> understands the option-tag and processes the response as normal, or it >>> doesn't understand the option-tag ... and then what does it do? It >>> can't send a 420 response *to a response*. >>> >>> Dale >>> >> Dale, I'm trying to add a new feature in the existing REGISTER framework >> and the CPE will determine whether or not this new feature should get >> activated based on the 401 response from the Registrar server. If the >> Registrar server includes the Require header in the 401 response, then the >> CPE knows that this feature is supported by the Registrar. > > It would helpful for you to lay out the scenario you have in mind for this > new feature. >
Aren’t you looking for the Supported header? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-8.1.1.9 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-8.1.1.9> /O _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
