Hi Peter, So, should a 200 response of REGISTER with Expires header field present but expires parameter not present in the Contact header field be treated as an invalid response ?
I feel that It should not be treated as an invalid response. Regards Monica Ingudam Huawei Technologies, Bangalore > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Peter Pa ppinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > [mailto:Peter Pa ppinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 3:55 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Re: 2 nits > > > > > > > > > Hi Monica, > > > > > > see my comments inline. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Peter Paeppinghaus > > > > > > Monica Ingudam wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > > > The duration of the validity of the Contact URI can be indicated > > > > through an Expires header field or an expires parameter in the > > > > Contact header field. > > > > > > > > So I think that the 200 response of REGISTER in the > example should > > > > be acceptable since it contains the Expires header,Even > > > though RFC 3261 > > > > Sec. 10.3, bullet 8 states that "Each Contact value MUST > > feature an > > > > "expires" parameter indicating its expiration interval > > chosen by the > > > > registrar." > > > > > > > > Maybe,the same rule stated in Sec. 10.2.1.1 (2nd Para) > > > should be valid > > > > for 200 response of REGISTER. > > > > > > > > > Well, yes, one could make sense of it. But MUST is MUST, and the > > > protocol designers certainly had reasons for making it > MUST. IMHO an > > > example given in an RFC should conform to the MUSTs of that > > same RFC. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Monica Ingudam > > > > Huawei Technologies, Bangalore > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>[Sip-implementors] 2 nits > > > >>Peter P?ppinghaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >><mailto:peter.paeppinghaus%40siemens.com> > > > >>Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:50:41 +0100 > > > >>Hi, > > > >> > > > >>I believe to have stumbled on two bugs in examples. > > > >> > > > >>1) Quotation from draft-ietf-sipping-reg-event-00.txt, p. 18: > > > >> > > > >> "Later on, the user registers (5): > > > >> > > > >> REGISTER sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIP/2.0 > > > >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc34.bar.com;branch=z9hG4bKnaaff > > > >> From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=99a8s > > > >> To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> CSeq: 9976 REGISTER > > > >> Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" > > > >> > > > >> The Request-URI in this example violates RFC 3261, > sec. 10.2: > > > >> "The userinfo and "@" components of the SIP URI MUST NOT > > > >>be present." > > > >> > > > >>2) The 200 OK in the REGISTER example of RFC 3261, sec. > > > 24.1 contains > > > >> an Expires header, but no expires parameter in the > > > Contact header. > > > >> > > > >> This violates RFC 3261, sec. 10.3, bullet 8: > > > >> "Each Contact value MUST feature an "expires" parameter > > > >> indicating its expiration interval chosen by the > registrar." > > > >> > > > >>Regards, > > > >> > > > >>Peter Paeppinghaus > > > >> > > > >>-- > > > >>Dr. Peter P?ppinghaus > > > >>Siemens AG | Phone: +49 89 - 722 40065 > > > >>ICM N PG U ID A1 | Fax: +49 89 - 722 58726 > > > >>Hofmannstr. 51 | Visitors: Building 1713 / Room 714 > > > >>D - 81359 M��nchen | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Dr. Peter Pa"ppinghaus > > > Siemens AG | Phone: +49 89 - 722 40065 > > > ICM N PG U ID A1 | Fax: +49 89 - 722 58726 > > > Hofmannstr. 51 | Visitors: Building 1713 / Room 714 > > > D - 81359 M��nchen | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
