[Sipping] Should we define target refresh response? Clarification required on draft-ietf-sipping-dialogusage
Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com> Fri, 22 September 2006 08:55 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQgoO-00007V-6q; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:55:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQgoM-00007P-6K for sipping@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:55:06 -0400
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.54]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQgoK-000752-JX for sipping@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:55:06 -0400
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J5Z00ABCLGKGF@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for sipping@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:09:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.3]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J5Z008VELGKTF@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for sipping@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:09:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from CMTEST6 ([10.70.149.108]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0J5Z00053LMQHN@szxml01-in.huawei.com> for sipping@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:13:39 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:51:14 +0800
From: Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com>
To: sipping@ietf.org
Message-id: <01ac01c6de24$42cc6c00$6c95460a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
Subject: [Sipping] Should we define target refresh response? Clarification required on draft-ietf-sipping-dialogusage
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1850953023=="
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Hi all, In draft draft-ietf-sipping-dialogusage, it had mentioned that INVITE, UPDATE, SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY and REFER are target refresh request, but 200 class response of these requests are target refresh response if Contact is present? In RFC3261 section 12.2.1.2 Para 4, it said 200 class response of target refresh request can update remote target URI. When a UAC receives a 2xx response to a target refresh request, it MUST replace the dialog's remote target URI with the URI from the Contact header field in that response, if present. So, can the same rule be applied to UPDATE, SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY and REFER? Even for middle dialog request? Many thanks in advance:) B. R. Tina Messengers: MSN: tinatsou6@hotmail.com Yahoo: tina_tsou Skype: tinaTSOU Jabber: tina@jabber.org
_______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
- [Sipping] Should we define target refresh respons… Tina TSOU
- RE: [Sipping] Should we define target refresh res… Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
- Re: [Sipping] Should we define target refresh res… Tina TSOU