> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 08:10
> To: 'Martin Préfontaine'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] (no subject)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Préfontaine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 3:49 PM
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject: [Sip-implementors] (no subject)
> >
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I'm developping a Proxy server using a 3rd party SIP stack.
> >
> > I have been testing it using a SIP SoftPhone.
> >
> > When sending requests the Softphone always add the User-Agent
> > header with its product name inside.
> >
> > The problem arise when it is sending a response. Iit also
> > include the User-Agent header. The Stack I am using doesn't
> > like it and returns an invalid parameter error when parsing
> > this response.
> >
> > I'd like to know if the softphone is violating the protocol
> > by inserting the User-Agent header in a response or is the
> > SIP Stack overreacting?
>
> The User-Agent header is defined in rfc2543 as a general
> header, which means it can appear in a request or response.
Actually, User-Agent was (erroneously) present in the grammatical
rule for request-header in section 4.1 in RFC2543, and not in
general-header. This may have lead to the above error if someone
followed the grammar rather than the description of User-Agent
when implementing the protocol.
> However, even if it were a request only header, parsers and
> UAs are advised to be forgiving, especially they should not
> complain about things that they will ignore anyway.
Of course.
> -Jonathan R.
//Peter
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
