Repost: [Sip] Buggy example in RFC 3261

[Peter =?UTF-8?B?UMOkcHBpbmdoYXVz?= <peter.paeppinghaus@siemens.com>]

I have posted this earlier, but it seems to have gone
unnoticed.

Hi,

I believe to have stumbled on a buggy example in RFC 3261.

The 200 OK in the REGISTER example of RFC 3261, sec. 24.1 contains
an Expires header, but no expires parameter in the Contact header.

This violates RFC 3261, sec. 10.3, bullet 8:
"Each Contact value MUST feature an "expires" parameter
  indicating its expiration interval chosen by the registrar."

Regards,

Peter Paeppinghaus

--
Dr. Peter Päppinghaus
Siemens AG            | Phone:    +49 89 - 722 40065
ICM N PG U ID A1      | Fax:      +49 89 - 722 58726
Hofmannstr. 51        | Visitors: Building 1713 / Room 714
D - 81359 München     | Email:    peter.paeppinghaus@siemens.com

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip