16 Nov
2004
16 Nov
'04
2:42 p.m.
One small note to the topic. Registrar can shorten the expires value but
must not extend it. I made a mistake while implementing min_expires
parameter, the parameter would extend the expiration interval, but the
registrar should reject such a registration instead. This is what
RFC3261 says and I will change the registrar to reject such
registrations later.
Jan.
On 15-11 09:34, Girish wrote:
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru <marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
If you try your approach, it will be a
discrepancy between what SER and
the phones think the expire value is. SER will consider the one received
in the original req. (it will ignore the new value forced from script
via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the value received in
reply ( the one forced from script via append_to_reply() ).
Thanks!
Yes. You are correct. RFC says that the registrar should honour the expires
parameter/header in
the REGISTER request. It can add an expires header if it is not present in the request.
Our
softphones dont send expires parameter in the requests, may be the reason why there are
no issues.
Best regards,
Marian
Best Regards,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers