> While you could simply ingore the ACK, that > probably isn't helpful in getting things working.
I don't disagree; however my understanding is that it has the same benefit/curse of discarding responses. Did rfc3261's recommendation concerning discarding responses have anything to do with UDP delivery issues potentially resolvable by a retry? > I'd be inclined to just pad out the message to the specified length. > That then may result in a body that is incorrectly formatted. > But for ACK that will only be the case if there is an ansswer > in the ACK. If so, you can then cope with the errors found in > the body. > > But generally this is an error case that you can cope with as > find works best for you. > > Paul > > Brett Tate wrote: > >> Please can you tell me the behavior of UAS in the following case: > >> If UAS is getting the ACK with content-length more than the actual > >> body length and all the headers are correct? > > > > See rfc3261 section 18.3. However since there is no > response for ACK, > > the "SHOULD generate a 400" does not apply. The ACK should be > > discarded similar to what occurs for responses. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
