ne 28, 2011 7:46 PM
To: Ravi Kumar
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] no supported header in re-invite or
different value
Is there a question here?
Paul
On 6/28/2011 4:31 AM, Ravi Kumar wrote:
> Thank to Paul and Brett for reply.
>
>
>
l Message-
> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Paul
> Kyzivat
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 10:13 PM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] no s
t: Re: [Sip-implementors] no supported header in re-invite or
different value
Ravi,
- there is *no* semantic difference between a Supported header
that *doesn't* contain "timer" and the total absence of a
Supported header.
- session-timer negotiation is repeated in every reinvi
Ravi,
- there is *no* semantic difference between a Supported header
that *doesn't* contain "timer" and the total absence of a
Supported header.
- session-timer negotiation is repeated in every reinvite and
update. If it is not renegotiated to be on, then it is off.
So in both your ca
> Here callee should assume that peer supports
> session timer or not because supported: timer
> is not present in request.
Concerning "timer", the proxy/UAS receiving the request cannot assume that the
UAC still supports "timer" from a negotiation perspective. If the UAC still
supports it, i
Hi All,
1.
CallerCallee
-INVITE>
supported: timer
Session-Expires: 200
<---200(INVITE)---
supported: timer
Session-Expires: 200;refresher=uac
---ACK---
