On Feb 6, 2010, at 10:03 PM, Dale Worley wrote: > On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 21:43 +0530, Rohit Aggarwal wrote: >> RFC 3261 also says that although Require is an optional header, it >> must not be ignored if present. >> In that case, it may be better option to cancel the request. > > IMO canceling the request is the one thing the UAC should not do. If > the UAC disregards the response, it cannot then cancel the request > because it received a response that it disregarded.
So the premise here is that the UAS is insane. If the UAC bothers to CANCEL, it's something like being polite to a grandmother suffering dementia. Another option is to declare the UAS insane -- and ignore it furthermore. But insane UAS's might do silly things -- like cause RTP to be streamed back where the original SDP offer said to send it. > If the UAC > processes the response, then why is it canceling the request? Another option is to ignore the Requires for the extension you don't support -- hoping it won't matter. But this seems like a misguided interpretation of Postel's Law leads to other nasty messes later, when that extension actually would matter. Suddenly you've got weird behavior The polite option, at least, cleans things up with a CANCEL. mark r [email protected] http://e-c-group.com/lindsey +1.229.316.0013 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
