On 2/11/07, Michael Jerris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nua does not autorespond to the condition of missing contact header in > an invite. It's fine for us to do in the application, but would be nice > for nua to do for us. There is no completely clear guideline for what > we should respond, but we are now using 400 Missing Contact Header as > suggested in: > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2006-March/012373.html > which seems correct.
RFC 2543 lists Contact as optional so we should perhaps be more tolerant here. However, other methods that have Contact as mandatory header in their RFC, like UPDATE, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY and REFER, we could reject those. I think we could gather all 2543/3261 stuff under one option in order to allow backwards-compatibility with 2543 or "bis04" implementations. Something like nutag_3261_me_gently_with_a_chainsaw? On the other hand, nutag_2543_compat/ntatag_2543_compat would probably get less publicity in entries like "Fscked up coz of coding". -- Pekka.Pessi mail at nokia.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Sofia-sip-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sofia-sip-devel
