Re: [Sip] Target Refresh Request and Contact Header

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Thu, 24 January 2008 18:41 UTC

Return-path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI70i-000607-IR; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:41:12 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JI70h-0005ye-51 for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:41:11 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI70g-0005xL-PX for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:41:10 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI70g-0007EH-Cr for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:41:10 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,245,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="84298878"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2008 13:41:11 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0OIfAAW020759; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:41:10 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0OIf1J9013926; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:41:09 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:41:08 -0500
Received: from [161.44.174.133] ([161.44.174.133]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:41:08 -0500
Message-ID: <4798DBC9.70802@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:41:13 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Roan <j.d.roan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Target Refresh Request and Contact Header
References: <c2b408690801241001j58e7eb89ja5bba4d118eaa5e9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c2b408690801241001j58e7eb89ja5bba4d118eaa5e9@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2008 18:41:08.0472 (UTC) FILETIME=[AF193F80:01C85EB8]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2207; t=1201200070; x=1202064070; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sip]=20Target=20Refresh=20Request=20an d=20Contact=20Header |Sender:=20 |To:=20David=20Roan=20<j.d.roan@gmail.com>; bh=4fJMUgWAe9HfUmvAYJQkWSDTlHy0k6tVdEBahvnNE1g=; b=kJX2J6wBo730QMxZMvmLrQde3c/7UodkuqD9wXBXg50Wr8pvCi9LWeTfYV ovCLENNrU/Z+/neYI4Q8H4SRjZFU97whTvNA51Z1vEs4u238fzH6vCY5Api/ m52nuaPmBC;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc: sip@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

IMO it should be MUST. I suspect is is weaker for 2543 compatibility.

	Paul

David Roan wrote:
> According to RFC 3261, the following is stated in section 12.2.1.1 
> <http://12.2.1.1>:
> A UAC SHOULD include a Contact header field in any target refresh 
> requests within a dialog, and unless there is a need to change it, the 
> URI SHOULD be the same as used in previous requests within the dialog.  
> If the "secure" flag is true, that URI MUST be a SIPS URI.As discussed 
> in Section 12.2.2, a Contact header field in a target refresh request 
> updates the remote target URI.  This allows a UA to provide a new 
> contact address, should its address change during the duration of the 
> dialog.
>  
> This seems to indicate that including the Contact header in a target 
> refresh request (ie, Re-INVITE or UPDATE) is only a strong 
> recommendation (ie, "SHOULD" vs "MUST").
>  
> However, table 3 in section 20 of RFC3261 seems to contradict this, as 
> it lists the Contact header as "m":
> Header field              where       proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Contact                      R                      o       -      -     
> m     o      o
>  
> Also, table 1 in section 8 of RFC3311 lists the Contact header as "m" 
> for the UPDATE request.
>  
> Is there any consensus as to which is considered the correct statement? 
> MUST the Contact header be included in target refresh requests(as 
> indicated by the header tables in RFC3261 and RFC3311)? Or, SHOULD the 
> Contact header be included in the target refresh request(as indicated by 
> section 12.2.1.1 <http://12.2.1.1> of RFC3261)?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any input, insight, or clarification.
> John D. Roan
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


_______________________________________________
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