No problem, thank you !
BR/pj
Sensitivity: Internal
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: den 24 september 2019 16:24
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] session refresh
On 9/24
On 9/24/19 6:03 AM, Philipp Schöning wrote:
This was most likely a typo, RFC 3264 describes SDP offer/answer model.
Yes, it was a typo. Sorry.
Am Di., 24. Sept. 2019 um 07:40 Uhr schrieb Sundbaum Per-Johan (Telenor
Sverige AB) :
Thank you, really helpful, but I need help on what I should lo
Thanks !
😊
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
On Behalf Of Philipp Schöning
Sent: den 24 september 2019 12:03
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] session refresh
This was most likely a typo, RFC 3264
This was most likely a typo, RFC 3264 describes SDP offer/answer model.
Am Di., 24. Sept. 2019 um 07:40 Uhr schrieb Sundbaum Per-Johan (Telenor
Sverige AB) :
> Thank you, really helpful, but I need help on what I should look for in
> RFC3265, I can't find that there is any mention of SDP's in it
nt: den 24 september 2019 00:27
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] session refresh
On 9/23/19 5:00 PM, Sundbaum Per-Johan (Telenor Sverige AB) wrote:
> Hi !
> Can anybody help me find relevant RFC/other info on how UAS should handle
> re-INVITE that is in
Thank you !
From: Kashif Husain
Sent: den 24 september 2019 00:04
To: Sundbaum Per-Johan (Telenor Sverige AB)
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] session refresh
And we can also respond with 200OK as mentioned in rfc3261 with no change in
our sdp.
&qu
On 9/23/19 5:00 PM, Sundbaum Per-Johan (Telenor Sverige AB) wrote:
Hi !
Can anybody help me find relevant RFC/other info on how UAS should handle
re-INVITE that is intended as a session refresh and not for modifying the
session ?
A pure session refresh is something that can only be recognized
And we can also respond with 200OK as mentioned in rfc3261 with no change
in our sdp.
"If the user is already a member of the session, and the session
parameters contained in the session description have not changed, the
UAS MAY silently accept the INVITE (that is, send a 2xx response
wi
You can check for SDP version of re-Invite, if its same as previous one
then its usually intended for session refresh.
Thanks,
-kashif
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 02:30 Sundbaum Per-Johan (Telenor Sverige AB), <
per-johan.sundb...@telenor.se> wrote:
> Hi !
> Can anybody help me find relevant RFC/other
RFC 4028 describes Session Timers in SIP.
RFC 3264, 4317, 4566, 6337 describe SDP as well as SDP offer/answer model.
RFC 6141 describes Re-INVITE and Target-Refresh Request Handling in the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).
Hope this helps
___
Sip-imp
Hi !
Can anybody help me find relevant RFC/other info on how UAS should handle
re-INVITE that is intended as a session refresh and not for modifying the
session ?
SDP B1 in (3) is identical with SDP B1 in (5)
CallerCallee
|
Harsha. R wrote:
> Hi,
> Consider the following scenario with regard to session-refresh
>
> INVITE[Min SE:900, (SE:900,refresher=uas),k:timer]
> UAC->UAS
>
> 183 SP,PRACK(183),200OK PRACK,180 Ringing, PRA
t: 16 January 2008 14:41
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] SESSION REFRESH: Can SE value be increased
byUAS?
Hi,
Consider the following scenario with regard to session-refresh
INVITE[Min SE:900, (SE:900,refresher=uas),k:timer
> Now my question is, since UAC has clearly set the
> MinSE(900) andSE(900) values in the Session-Refresh
> request and chosen UAS as the refresher in the process,
> is UAS allowed the latitude to INCREASE the value of
> Session Expires header to 1800 in the response
> to Session-Refresh reque
Hi,
Consider the following scenario with regard to session-refresh
INVITE[Min SE:900, (SE:900,refresher=uas),k:timer]
UAC->UAS
183 SP,PRACK(183),200OK PRACK,180 Ringing, PRACK(180),200 OK PRACK follow
15 matches
Mail list logo
