Re: [Sip-implementors] [sipcore] RFC 4028 UAS behavior requirement of Require header

2021-06-01 Thread Hoil Choi
Thanks Ranjit. The word "MUST" seems to throw some vendors off. I saw at least one device that behaves this way due to the word "MUST". Is there way to get that reviewed and edited? Thanks, Hoil From: Ranjit Avasarala Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:40 PM To:

Re: [Sip-implementors] RFC 4028 UAS behavior requirement of Require header

2021-06-01 Thread Paul Kyzivat
Ranjit, BTW, did you notice that there is an erata applying to section 9 of RFC4028? If you didn't notice, it might be confusing you. On 5/28/21 5:59 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: On 5/28/21 4:40 PM, Ranjit Avasarala wrote: Hi Holi The RFC says UAS should add a Require: timer in response when

Re: [Sip-implementors] [sipcore] RFC 4028 UAS behavior requirement of Require header

2021-06-01 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 5/28/21 4:40 PM, Ranjit Avasarala wrote: Hi Holi The RFC says UAS should add a Require: timer in response when UAC is the refresher to indicate to UAC that it is the refresher. But I think this is redundant as UAC anyway knows it is the refresher and does not need a reminder from UAS. The

Re: [Sip-implementors] [sipcore] RFC 4028 UAS behavior requirement of Require header

2021-06-01 Thread Hoil Choi
Hi Ranjit, thanks for taking a look. However, I'm more interested in case where UAS is responding to UAC's request with refresher as itself (uac). Consider this case - UAC INVITE (Session-Expires: 1800;refresher=uac, Supported: timer) > UAS UAC < 200 OK (Session-Expires: