I think you are missing the whole point of the test. Like dale mentions one can in theory define any method name. All the test is trying to do is to ensure that the container is capable of generating an arbitary request. Not sure I understand your concern with the same.
Thanks, Venkatesh Sent from Venky's iPhone On Mar 2, 2009, at 8:08 PM, NarayanaSwamy <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand that this is a guideline/practice we could follow to > support a > custom-message. > How about handling an unknown message (say XYZ)? > > In the TCK (for JSR289) one of the test is sending an unknown > message. Is it > okay to expect the SIP element handle this unknown message? > > NarayanaSwamy A. > --- > --- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from > HUAWEI, which > is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed > above. Any > use of the > information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited > to, > total or partial > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the > intended > recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, > please > notify the sender by > phone or email immediately and delete it! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale Worley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 2:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Regarding custom messages > > On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 17:56 +0530, NarayanaSwamy wrote: >> HI All, >> >> As per RFC 3261 >> Request-Line = Method SP Request-URI SP SIP-Version CRLF >> >> Method: This specification defines six methods: REGISTER for >> registering contact information, INVITE, ACK, and CANCEL for setting >> up sessions, BYE for terminating sessions, and OPTIONS for querying >> servers about their capabilities. SIP extensions, documented in >> standards track RFCs, may define additional methods. >> >> >> Can anyone pls tell me which RFC defines custom methods in the >> request >> URI to be supported by sip elements. > > If a method was defined in an RFC, it would not be "custom"! > > However, there are conventions for "custom", "private", or "extension" > identifiers that are used in many IETF protocols: > > If you want to define an identifier for your own experimental use, > start it > with "X", then a word that is your project's name, your company's > name, or > even your own name, to provide some "scoping" for the extension, > such as > "NORTEL", and then another word which identifies the extension. > This gives > results like: > > X-NORTEL-RULETEST1 sip:[email protected]:5060 SIP/2.0 > CSeq: 1 RULETEST1 > > If your extension becomes popular enough that multiple projects use > it in a > consistent way, change the name to remove the project-name part: > > X-RULETEST1 sip:[email protected]:5060 SIP/2.0 > CSeq: 1 RULETEST1 > > This convention can be applied to other element names in protocols. > > Dale > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
