[SIPForum-discussion] hi
Singh, Indresh (SNL US)
indresh.singh at siemens.com
Wed Mar 28 18:05:39 UTC 2007
Below is my understanding. Hopefully it would help.
Regards,
Indresh
________________________________
From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of kiran chakkilam
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:57 AM
To: discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] hi
Hi all,
I have doubts on basic registration
UA Registrarserver
Register---------------->
< --------------------200 Ok
1)In this Scenario whether Register request & 200 Ok called as a
transaction or not?
[Singh, Indresh] Yes for devices compatible with RFC3261.
2)Whether it's possilble to send the Register request with out branch
parameter in VIA header?
[Singh, Indresh] It is possible to send register request without branch
parameter in via header (if SIP device is compliant only with
RFC-2543/previous SIP RFC ). In that case the registrar server has to be
backward compatible with RFC-2543 to be able to process this request.
RFC-3261 recommends that SIP servers should be able to process requests
without branch parameter to maintain backward compatibility with
RFC-2543
3)are there any possiblities to send the register request with out VIA
header n Registration?
[Singh, Indresh] No. Via header is mandatory in the requests. Refer to
Table 3 on page 163 of RFC-3261 Without via header in requests the
responses can not be sent.
4)If i send aRequire header contains INVITE , CANCEL in the Register
request to Registrar server(DUT) whether it responds with unsupported
parameter or not
[Singh, Indresh] Require Header or Allow header. Require header has tags
like timer ( indicating session timer support ) 100 rel ( indicating
PRACK support ) ??
5) If i am sending INVITE request toward Registrar (DUT) what are the
expected responses.
Logically 405 Method Not allowed. Page 186
Thanks in Advance
Ch.kiran
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20070328/2722a488/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the discussion
mailing list