Jeff Wright wrote:
> What should the behavior of a registrar be if it receives a REGISTER request
> w/ an Expires: header that has no expiration parameter? In other words,
> instead of getting
>
> Expires: 3600
>
> it gets
>
> Expires:
>
> I looked briefly through Section 7 of 3261 and didn't immediately see
> anything addressing this anomalous case. On the one hand I could see a case
> for just dropping the message (since it's malformed); on the other hand, a
> robust implementation might want to reply w/ 200 OK that has a default
> expiration value associated with it.
Well, it isn't valid syntax according to 3261 so you are justified in
rejecting the message.
But if you are feeling charitable you could just ignore the header.
Its possible that the REGISTER will have no contacts, or have contacts
that all have an expires= parameter, in which case there is no use for
the value in this header anyway. And as you point out, if there is a
contact with no expires, you could apply your own default.
Such things are likely to enhance interop. But don't send your own
REGISTER messages out like that.
Paul
> Thanks,
>
> Jeffrey Wright
> System Test Engineering Manager
> Aztek Networks
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
