RE: [Sip] Target Refresh Request and Contact Header

["Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Is there something that could go wrong if it is not included?

Regards,

Christer 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 24. tammikuuta 2008 20:41
> To: David Roan
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Target Refresh Request and Contact Header
> 
> 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 
> > [e-mail] for questions on current sip Use 
> > [e-mail] 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 
> [e-mail] for questions on current sip 
> Use [e-mail] 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 [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip