According to RFC 3261, the following is stated in section 12.2.1.1: A UAC SHOULD include a Contact header field in any target refresh requests within a dialog, and unless there is a need to change it, the URI SHOULD be the same as used in previous requests within the dialog. If the "secure" flag is true, that URI MUST be a SIPS URI.As discussed in Section 12.2.2, a Contact header field in a target refresh request updates the remote target URI. This allows a UA to provide a new contact address, should its address change during the duration of the dialog.
This seems to indicate that including the Contact header in a target refresh request (ie, Re-INVITE or UPDATE) is only a strong recommendation (ie, "SHOULD" vs "MUST"). However, table 3 in section 20 of RFC3261 seems to contradict this, as it lists the Contact header as "m": Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG ___________________________________________________________________ Contact R o - - m o o Also, table 1 in section 8 of RFC3311 lists the Contact header as "m" for the UPDATE request. Is there any consensus as to which is considered the correct statement? MUST the Contact header be included in target refresh requests(as indicated by the header tables in RFC3261 and RFC3311)? Or, SHOULD the Contact header be included in the target refresh request(as indicated by section 12.2.1.1 of RFC3261)? Thanks in advance for any input, insight, or clarification. John D. Roan
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
