>>blame you if you drop the response. You could but that's a bit harsh when it doesn't particularly matter.
For me, the way for maximum interoperability: "Ignore headers not understood. Ignore headers if not interested." And by all means tell information the vendor of the product about their product's bad behaviour. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rockson Li (zhengyli) Sent: 25 June 2008 10:04 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] unexpected header in SIP response Both RFC3261 and RFC2543 say Max-Forwards can only be present in request, So I guess no one can blame you if you drop the response. RFC3261 page 161 Max-Forwards R amr m m m m m m Rockson -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Sip-implementors] unexpected header in SIP response Query on such an scenario: As we know that the Header - Max-Forwards are only for SIP Request message, however, if the UAC receives a 183 message with Max-Forwards header present, how the UAC should react to such a response? Should the call be taken down or go ahead? Is there an explicit description on such an error handling? Thanks, Alex Zhang _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
