[reSIProcate] Question on Accept Header Validiation...

[Scott Godin]

DUM Design Team:
 
OK - I'm coming to realize that the Accept headers are not actually an
advertisement of capabilities, but are actually a request for a body type in
the response.  This means that the following DUM Profile options should
actually be different for each dialog/session type:
addSupportedMimeType
addSupportedEncoding
addSupportedLanguage
For example:  Let's say we support application/sdp mime type for Invites (as
required by 3261) - so we add it as a supported MimeType to the DUM Profile.
We should not be doing things like adding an Accept header to other request
types, such as PUBLISH and MESSAGE. (this is the current behaviour).
 
This problem also applies request validation.  For instance if we support
application/sdp for Invites and text/plain for MESSAGE requests - we
currently should  add both as supported Mime types to the DUM Profile.  But
text/plain is not a valid mime type in an Invite Session - so that
ValidateRequest function should be rejecting such a request.
 
So it sounds like we can't really generalize "SupportedMimeTypes" across
requests.  I'm thinking maybe we should be splitting these settings up -
maybe something like:
addSupportedInviteSessionMimeTypes
addSupportedInviteSessionEncodings
...
addSupportedMessageMimeTypes 
...
addSupportedSubscribeMimeTypes
 
This seems pretty messy though.  
 
Any thoughts on how to handle this better in the DUM profile?  Or am I way
off base here?
 
Thanks,
 
Scott
 
 
  _____  

From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin at icescape.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 11:22 AM
To: resiprocate-devel at list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: [reSIProcate] Question on Accept Header Validiation...
 
Hi Guys,
 
I'm starting to try the Sip Forum Test Framework SFTF
(http://www.sipfoundry.org/sftf/index.html
<http://www.sipfoundry.org/sftf/index.html> ) against reSIP/DUM.  I'll post
my results shortly, but I have a quick question:
 
Test case 216 describes that a Server is supposed to deny a request with an
unknown body type in the Accept header field.  
 
This just doesn't seem quite right to me.  If a UAC advertises that it
accepts a certain body type - why would a UAS reject the request just
because it doesn't support that body type?  I can't find a definitive RFC
reference to support this behviour.
 
If there is a consensus that this IS a valid test case - I'll be sure to add
this check into the DUM validateRequest code (currently commented out).
 
Any thoughts?
 
Thanks,
 
Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20040924/17333f97/attachment.htm>