the answer in a reliable response.
Thanks,
Paul
> Andrea
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:09:29 -0400
> From: "Brett Tate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Clarification Questi
ponse.
Andrea
--
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:09:29 -0400
From: "Brett Tate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Clarification Question on UPDATE
RFC3311
To: "Romel Khan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
M
ginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Romel Khan
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:46 PM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Clarification Question on UPDATE RFC3311
UPDATE RFC text seems to be centered on rel
> Behalf Of Romel Khan
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:46 AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Clarification Question on UPDATE RFC3311
>
> UPDATE RFC text seems to be centered on reliable provisional response.
> The only ex
UPDATE RFC text seems to be centered on reliable provisional response.
The only example is covered with reliable provisional response. I know
of at least 1 vendor implementation that forces the use of UPDATE only
when provisional reliable response handling is used.
However the RFC does mention: "
