>>>>> "Rockson Li (zhengyli)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, that is my interpretation. Note that a "MUST" in the text of RFC 3261 > takes precedence over the content of Table 2. You can't reject table 2 in so easy way;) Yes, the table itself doesn't have the magic words from RFC2119, but the section contains rules to interpret it. These rules declare "MAY". If there is some another rule which declares "MUST", this is Yet Another Contradiction Example and should be treated accordingly - by creating an official explanation. But you can't declare such precedence only via fact it's table, not text. > If any in-dialog request needs to be sent prior to receipt of the final > response, then the Remote Target (from the Contact) and Route Set (from the > Record-Route) must be set up based on the 1xx response. This is needed > especially if reliable provisional responses are being used. The PRACK needs > the remote target and route set. Some User Agents like to send DTMF in INFO > requests, and like to do it before the session is established. I propose another interpretation. As soon as Contact is supposed to change remote target of message receiver, and as soon as there is some initially assigned remote target when INVITE is set, there is no reason to change it unless it's really changed. That's why it's practically correct to see response without contact. -- Valentin Nechayev PortaOne Inc., Software Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
