I guess most 3261 compliant implementations will send a 400 error response. 2543 compliant spec, most likely, will accept it.
Sanjay >-----Original Message----- >From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:15 PM >To: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); David Roan >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [Sip] Target Refresh Request and Contact Header > > >Hi, > >Is there something that could go wrong if it is not included? > >Regards, > >Christer > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 24. tammikuuta 2008 20:41 >> To: David Roan >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Sip] Target Refresh Request and Contact Header >> >> IMO it should be MUST. I suspect is is weaker for 2543 compatibility. >> >> Paul >> >> David Roan wrote: >> > According to RFC 3261, the following is stated in section 12.2.1.1 >> > <http://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 <http://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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > >_______________________________________________ >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 > _______________________________________________ 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
