Alex Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The bit that got me confused was 12.1.1:
> The Contact header field contains an address where the
> UAS would like to be contacted for subsequent requests in the dialog
>which seems to imply a degree of optionality ("would like to be")
>as to whether the UAC contacts the UAS at the address in the
>Contact: header provided or using the original Request-URI.
The Contact header field was not mandatory in RFC 2543, the
wording originated in RFC 2543. However, the previous sentence
contained MAY in RFC 2543, MUST in 3261. Also the Table 2 on RFC
3261 page 162 tells that 2XX responses to INVITE MUST contain
Contact header field.
>But I can rely on this working no matter how obnoxious the UAC and
>UAS (i.e. A and C are) provided they are compliant?
Provided they are RFC 3261 compliant, yes. If you wanted to
support also RFC 2543 UAs, you could add an extra Record-Route
header to the 2XX response without Contact.
--Pekka
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
