Thanks Robert, I was just curious to know the expectations/strength of what could be proxied within a CANCEL per RFC 3261.
-brett > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:48 AM > To: Brett Tate > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] proxy CANCEL headers and body > > 3261 doesn't allow CANCEL to carry a body. > There is no text in 3261 about carrying information from a > received cancel into a generated cancel. > There is a sentence in 3326 with that requirement (at SHOULD > strength). > > I don't remember seeing anything try to use this behavior > though - have you run into something that is? > > RjS > > On Jan 8, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Brett Tate wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > RFC 3326 defines ability to include a Reason header within a CANCEL. > > > > Does RFC 3261 provide any normative (or non normative) statements > > concerning proxying received headers from CANCEL in > subsequently sent > > CANCEL? If so, where? > > > > Does RFC 3261 provide any normative statements concerning proxying > > received body from CANCEL in subsequently sent CANCEL? If > so, where? > > I assume the answer is no unless section 20.1 table 2 errantly > > disallowed (not applicable) a Content-Type within CANCEL. > > > > Thanks, > > Brett > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
