Yes - I agree. I think the UAS should make every effort to inform the offending client that there is a problem - and as it does not impact the procedures of sending + matching responses, then do it.
Chris. >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul D.Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 22 January 2004 12:23 >To: 'Paul Kyzivat' >Cc: SIP-IMPLEMENTORS WG >Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Response to request with invalid CSeq? > >Paul, > >Providing the Via is intact then the response can be routed back to the >UAC. >There is probably also a good chance that the errant UAC can match the >response to the request, especially for RFC3261 where only the Via branch >needs to be used to correlate requests and responses. For this reason I >would contend that sending a response is sensible. > >If the UAS does not send a response, the UAC might never know that the UAS >doesn't like the requests because the CSeq (or some other header) is >invalid. It just looks like the UAS is down and not responding if it >doesn't send a response. > >Paul DS. > >Paul D.Smith >Network Protocols Group >Data Connection Ltd (DCL) >Tel: +44 20 8366 1177 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Fax: +44 20 8363 1039 Web: http://www.dataconnection.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 21 January 2004 18:55 >To: SIP (E-mail) >Subject: [Sip-implementors] Response to request with invalid CSeq? > > >A question came up about this locally, and then I noticed something >similar in the torture tests: > >If a request is received with an invalid CSeq value (e.g. value too >large, or containing invalid characters), what should the response be? > >Section 3.1.2.4 of the torture test says the receiving element should >respond with a 400. But I question this. It forces the receiving element >to format and send an incorrectly formatted response. I wonder if it >might be as good or better to simply drop the request. > >A slightly different case occurs if the request has no CSeq at all. What >should be done then? Sending a response with no CSeq seems even worse >than sending one with an invalid CSeq. It seems unlikely that it could >ever be matched to the sender's transaction, so it be worthless to send. > > Paul > >_______________________________________________ >Sip-implementors mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors >_______________________________________________ >Sip-implementors mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl - www.mailcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
