Raj,

I don't think this is a bug, the 200(REGISTER) must have a to tag per
RFC3261.

Sec 8.2.6.2
   If a request contained a To tag in the request, the To header field
   in the response MUST equal that of the request.  However, if the To
   header field in the request did not contain a tag, the URI in the To
   header field in the response MUST equal the URI in the To header
   field; additionally, <NOTE>the UAS MUST add a tag to the To header
field in
   the response</NOTE> (with the exception of the 100 (Trying) response,
in
   which a tag MAY be present).   



This is the general UAS behavior, which definitely applies to registrar.

fyi

-Rockson

-----Original Message-----
From: Raj Jain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:40 AM
To: Neelakantan Balasubramanian
Cc: Bob Penfield; Rockson Li (zhengyli); Tarun2 Gupta;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query regarding 'To' tag in REGISTER
request

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Neelakantan Balasubramanian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Typically a REGISTER request doesn't not establish a dialog. RFC 3261
section 10.2.
>
> "   A REGISTER request does not establish a dialog.  A UAC MAY include
a
>   Route header field in a REGISTER request based on a pre-existing
>   route set as described in Section 8.1.  The Record-Route header
field"
>
> Also from Section 8.1.1.2
>
>   A request outside of a dialog MUST NOT contain a To tag; the tag in
>   the To field of a request identifies the peer of the dialog.  Since
>   no dialog is established, no tag is present.
>
> So, there is no need for a To tag in REGISTER.   In order to have
better interoperability, the presence of To tag should be ignored.

Correct. I guess, one of the reasons why this confusion arises is due to
the usage of To tag in REGISTER's 200 OK in RFC 3261 section 24.1.
Historically, there was once a notion (when RFC 3261 was being
written) that REGISTERs were dialog forming. Later, this idea was
dropped, but the example wasn't scrubbed. This is probably captured as a
bug at bugs.sipit.net.

        SIP/2.0 200 OK
        Via: SIP/2.0/UDP bobspc.biloxi.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
         ;received=192.0.2.4
        To: Bob <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=2493k59kd
        From: Bob <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=456248
        Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        CSeq: 1826 REGISTER
        Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        Expires: 7200
        Content-Length: 0

--
Raj Jain

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

Reply via email to