[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Repost: [Sip] Buggy example in RFC 3261

Sorry for not responding. I did notice this. There is an error here, as you point out. What is NOT clear is whether the error is in the example, or in the normative text. For REGISTER requests, you can use either the Expires header field or the expires contact header field parameter. It seems odd that this same rule would not apply to REGISTER responses. My personal recollection was that either the Expires header field or the expires contact param was OK for either request or response. This doesn't match the normative text though.

Does anyone use the Expires header field and NOT the expires contact param in REGISTER responses?

-Jonathan R.

Peter Päppinghaus wrote:
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


--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.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