>>I don't know which error code is correct but the proxies on the path are not 
>>behaving correctly.
 
That is possible, however it is also possible that the INVITE was received 
directly
from a non-RFC3261-compliant UA (which didn't add a Max-Forwards header).
 
As in many situations, in error cases, you can chose do what you want as long 
as it's reasonable.
* 400 would be an acceptable response if you desire strict compliance (as Iñaki 
said).
* I don't think 483 is suitable since you should only do this if you got 
Max-Forwards=0.
* Ignoring the INVITE is possible but just risks more INVITEs (as 
retransmissions)
* Processing INVITE normally is ok too
 
My preference is the last one but I think the first is ok too.

Regards,
 
Attila
 
 


________________________________

From: krishna kalluri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 24 September 2008 11:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Attila Sipos
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] UA behaviour on recieving INVITE 
withoutmax-forwards header


Hi,

Attilas response is correct if a proxy receives an INVITE with out Max-Forwards 
header field. I think Navneet is saying "Endpoint"

Section 16.6 point 3 of RFC 3261 says  
"If the copy does not contain a Max-Forwards header field, the proxy MUST add 
one with a field value, which SHOULD be 70"

In RFC 3261 I didn't find any description about what an endpoint should do if 
it receives with out Max-Forwards. 

I don't know which error code is correct but the proxies on the path are not 
behaving correctly.


Regards
Krishna





        Message: 8
        Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:53:29 +0100
        From: "Attila Sipos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] UA behaviour on recieving INVITE
               withoutmax-forwards header
        To: "Navneet Gupta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
               <[email protected]>
        Message-ID:
               <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
        
        Step d) Process the INVITE normally.
        
        from RFC3261
                Some existing UAs will not provide a Max-Forwards header field
                in a request.
        
        Regards,
        
        Attila
        
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
        Navneet Gupta
        Sent: 24 September 2008 10:42
        To: [email protected]
        Subject: [Sip-implementors] UA behaviour on recieving INVITE
        withoutmax-forwards header
        
        Hi
        If a SIP UA (Endpoint), recieves an INVITE request which does not
        contain the mandatory Max-Forwards header, what should the UA do? Should
        it -
        
        a) respond with 483 (Too many hops) response
        b) respond with 400 Bad request response
        c) Stay quiet and Ignore the INVITE.
        d) Process the INVITE normally.
        
        Please help.
        
        Regards
        Navneet
        
        
        
        
        


_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to