Re: [Sip] Reg. refresher param in 2xx response
"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> Wed, 19 May 2010 16:28 UTC
Return-Path: <kpfleming@digium.com>
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 401B43A692D for <sip@core3.amsl.com>;
Wed, 19 May 2010 09:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No,
score=-104.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.384, BAYES_50=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pG089tOm9DWM for
<sip@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 May 2010 09:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.digium.com (mail.digium.com [216.207.245.2]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D303A6A46 for <sip@ietf.org>;
Wed, 19 May 2010 09:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.digium.internal ([10.24.55.203]
helo=zimbra.hsv.digium.com) by mail.digium.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <kpfleming@digium.com>) id 1OEm81-0005yy-KL for sip@ietf.org;
Wed, 19 May 2010 11:28:17 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9518CD8025 for <sip@ietf.org>;
Wed, 19 May 2010 11:28:17 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from zimbra.hsv.digium.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost
(zimbra.hsv.digium.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id
Xmmjyg0R69+V for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 May 2010 11:28:17 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [10.24.250.46] (unknown [10.24.250.46]) by
zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DF30D8023 for <sip@ietf.org>;
Wed, 19 May 2010 11:28:17 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4BF411A0.10503@digium.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:28:16 -0500
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
Organization: Digium, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sip@ietf.org
References: <0C4DE8BD80D149D2BC3D940CA05CE74F@china.huawei.com> <747A6506A991724FB09B129B79D5FEB614815B6E27@EXMBXCLUS01.citservers.local>
<CC7B5CD68EBD4D7DB2CB888E9B55334D@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC7B5CD68EBD4D7DB2CB888E9B55334D@china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: id=05FB8DB2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Sip] Reg. refresher param in 2xx response
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>,
<mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>,
<mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 16:28:32 -0000
On 05/18/2010 09:08 AM, Harbhanu wrote: > Precisely, IMO too RFC doesn’t specify UAC behavior for this situation. That is generally the case; RFCs can't possibly define how an implementation should behave when interacting with a non-conforming implementation, because there are an infinite number of ways to be non-conformant. -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA skype: kpfleming | jabber: kfleming@digium.com Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
- [Sip] Reg. refresher param in 2xx response Harbhanu
- Re: [Sip] Reg. refresher param in 2xx response Brett Tate
- Re: [Sip] Reg. refresher param in 2xx response Harbhanu
- Re: [Sip] Reg. refresher param in 2xx response Kevin P. Fleming