[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sip-implementors
Subject:    Re: [Sip-implementors] Register expiration/interval question.
From:       Sri <sri () siliconrock ! com>
Date:       2004-10-22 3:24:52
Message-ID: 20041022032452.GA5183 () siliconrock ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I think its optional. The proxy is not mandated to reject the
request, it MAY reject the request.
 
         The registrar MAY choose an expiration less than the requested
         expiration interval.  If and only if the requested expiration
         interval is greater than zero AND smaller than one hour AND
         less than a registrar-configured minimum, the registrar MAY
         reject the registration with a response of 423 (Interval Too
         Brief).  This response MUST contain a Min-Expires header field
         that states the minimum expiration interval the registrar is
         willing to honor.  It then skips the remaining steps.




On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 07:04:49PM -0400, Medhavi Bhatia wrote:
> If the proxy wants to choose a longer time than asked by the UA, it should
> return back a 423.  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sip-implementors-bounces@cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-
> > bounces@cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Lubbs
> > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:56 PM
> > To: sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
> > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Register expiration/interval question.
> > 
> > Hi Folks,
> > As I read RFC 3261, I interpret the statement in section 10.2.1.1, "...
> > the registrar selects the actual time interval based on its local
> > policy", and in section 10.3, "Allowing the registrar to set the
> > registration interval protects it against excessively frequent
> > registration refreshes ..." as indicating that the registrar may set a
> > registration interval that is either greater or shorter than the one
> > suggested by the client. Am I correct?
> > 
> > 
> > The reason I ask is that I am designing a registrar that will be part of
> > a closed system (no 3rd party products will register with it) and we
> > have a need for the registrar to enforce a particular registration
> > interval. It may be greater or less than the expiry suggested in the
> > register method. We currently have a debate raging as to whether this is
> > "proper" with respect to RFC 3261. My argument in support of the
> > registrar using an interval that is greater than the suggested expiry is
> > that otherwise the partial statement "protects it against excessively
> > frequent registration refreshes" is meaningless.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Steve
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip-implementors mailing list
> > Sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
> > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]