Hi As far as user-agent field is considered is optional for requests and responses. answer to Is User-Agent really expected within responses? is no, saying that
One more thing Why would it be strange to to As you mentioned that there will be a condition when User-Agent and Server are present and not equivalent within a response? That is allright we dont care what type of phones or their properties are if they can send and recieve properly I hope I answer the question. Reg Sai On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Brett Tate <[email protected]> wrote: > Howdy, > > RFC 3261 sections 20.35 and 20.45 appear to indicate that Server is for > responses and User-Agent is for requests. However, table 3 indicates that > User-Agent is also for responses. > > Is User-Agent really expected within responses? If so, would it be > strange if User-Agent and Server are present and not equivalent within a > response? > > For what it is worth... as part of the debate about fixing/deprecating > table 2, Adam's original effort to fix table 2 does still show User-Agent > within responses. > > http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/adam/table2/table2.html > > Thanks, > Brett > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > -- With Regards Sairam _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
