2009/5/5 Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>: > > Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > >> Please Bob, read the *oficially* reported bug about this subject which >> had a long discussion some time ago: >> http://bugs.sipit.net/show_bug.cgi?id=775
> I agree with Bob that there is no bug. Its how you parse the English that > matters. Paul, I think that the bug is the ambiguity in the specification. You understand some thing, while others understand a different meaning. IMHO there *is* a bug. > IMO this is preferred to an alternative approach, which would also conform > to the current text - include a Contact header with the Contact in the > request, with an expires=0 parameter on it. I think I have heard of that > being done by some implementations, and it confuses some other > implementations, though they ought to be tolerant of it. An UA can send a REGISTER with no "Contact" header in order to get the locations for its AoR. This REGISTER *doesn't* contain "Contact" headers. If this AoR is not registered, the how to compose the "200 OK"? The REGISTER has no "Contact" so your suggestion above fails. Best regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
