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

List:       sip-implementors
Subject:    Re: [Sip-implementors] Contact in 180
From:       "Jeroen van Bemmel" <jbemmel () zonnet ! nl>
Date:       2005-06-30 17:03:47
Message-ID: 00e401c57d95$ae412070$6502a8c0 () BEMBUSTER
[Download RAW message or body]

In general, wouldn't it be accurate to state that it is RECOMMENDED to add a 
Contact header in any provisional response sent?
It improves overall efficiency since proxies that did not record-route drop 
out of the path.

In particular in the context of RFC3262 (reliable responses) this can make a 
difference, since it is likely that one or more PRACKs will follow such a 
response

Jeroen

> Page 57 of RFC 3261 says "When a UAC receives a 2xx response to a target 
> refresh request, it MUST replace the dialog's remote target URI from the 
> Contact header field in the response, if present"
>
> My question is: if the same applies for Contact header in 1xx also? ie if 
> I send a Contact header in 180 (say reliable), can I expect a PRACK to be 
> received at the Contact address specified in 180? or can I expect an 
> UPDATE if sent by the UAC to come at the Contact address specified in 180?
>
> Thanks
> Andy
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Free antispam, antivirus and 1GB to save all your messages
> Only in Yahoo! Mail: http://in.mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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]