Re: [Sip] RFC 3261 supported header in 1xx responses

It makes sense to include them in a dialog forming response. A normal 
1xx is not dialog forming. My suspicion (though I didn't check if this 
was true) is that it went away when 100rel moved out of 3261. It can't 
hurt to send them, of course, but it would be ignored unless its reliable.

-Jonathan R.

Brett Tate wrote:

> Within early versions of draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis, the Supported header
> could be expected within 1xx responses.  However within
> draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-06 it was removed and remains so within RFC 3261.
> Is there a reason why it is undesirable to indicate supported extensions
> within a 1xx?  Or was it just an oversight when changing the "Summary of
> header fields" table to indicate 2xx instead of all responses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
jdrosen@cisco.com                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.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