[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0013599]: [patch] When unregistering a UA, 200 OK response from Asterisk is not SIP compliant

[Asterisk Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=13599 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                hjourdain
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   13599
Category:                   Channels/chan_sip/Registration
Reproducibility:            sometimes
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     confirmed
Asterisk Version:           1.4.22 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A 
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Disclaimer on File?:        N/A 
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2008-10-02 01:04 CDT
Last Modified:              2008-10-08 16:49 CDT
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    [patch] When unregistering a UA, 200 OK response
from Asterisk is not SIP compliant
Description: 
When Asterisk is used as a registrar, and a registered UA is sending a
REGISTER with Expires header set to 0, then usually Asterisk will send back
a 200 OK response, containing a Contact header with the contact to be
removed, and an expires parameter that is set to the previous expiration
value!!!
This is not compliant with RFC 3261!
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0093390) putnopvut (administrator) - 2008-10-08 16:49
 http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=13599#c93390 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Could you cite the portion of RFC 3261 that this violates? Also, is this
actually causing a problem, or is it just that the RFC is violated? 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2008-10-08 16:49 putnopvut      Note Added: 0093390                          
======================================================================