Re: [Sip-implementors] refresher mid-call

2015-02-12 Thread Dale R. Worley
rsw2111 writes: > 4028 is clear that the supported header in the initial INVITE indicates > whether or not refreshers are supported by the UAC. In this case, there is > no Supported header in the initial INVITE, so it can be assumed that the > A-side does not support refreshers. That being the cas

Re: [Sip-implementors] refresher mid-call

2015-02-12 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 2/11/15 4:17 PM, rsw2111 wrote: 4028 is clear that the supported header in the initial INVITE indicates whether or not refreshers are supported by the UAC. In this case, there is no Supported header in the initial INVITE, so it can be assumed that the A-side does not support refreshers. That

Re: [Sip-implementors] refresher mid-call

2015-02-12 Thread rsw2111
Hi, Thanks for the response. We have asked the supplier to explain the 480, but I'm asking more as a question of sip rfc compliance with regards to the reinvite i'm not sure what you mean by this: "Concerning RFC 4028, the session expiration stuff is negotiated again with every re-INVITE and UPD

Re: [Sip-implementors] refresher mid-call

2015-02-12 Thread Brett Tate
> i'm not sure what you mean by this: > "Concerning RFC 4028, the session expiration stuff > is negotiated again with every re-INVITE and UPDATE" It means that the session expiration activation, deactivation, et cetera can basically change with every successful re-INVITE or UPDATE. > 4028 is clea

Re: [Sip-implementors] refresher mid-call

2015-02-11 Thread Dale R. Worley
rsw2111 writes: > I've been debating this with someone, and I'd appreciate some outside input. > below is the scenario: > > A B > INVITE -> with no supported header > <--100 > <--18X > <--200OK with no refresher/session-expires or min-se > ACK > > <--INVITE with S

Re: [Sip-implementors] refresher mid-call

2015-02-11 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 2/10/15 4:49 PM, rsw2111 wrote: Hi, I've been debating this with someone, and I'd appreciate some outside input. below is the scenario: A B INVITE -> with no supported header <--100 <--18X <--200OK with no refresher/session-expires or min-se ACK > <--INVITE

Re: [Sip-implementors] refresher mid-call

2015-02-11 Thread Brett Tate
> We suspect that the re-INVITE is what's causing the 480. > This scenario does not seem clear in RFC 4028. can someone > please clarify and provide proof? Concerning returning 480 to mid-dialog requests such as re-INVITE, RFC 5057 indicates that RFC 3261 is unclear about what it means. You mi

[Sip-implementors] refresher mid-call

2015-02-11 Thread rsw2111
Hi, I've been debating this with someone, and I'd appreciate some outside input. below is the scenario: A B INVITE -> with no supported header <--100 <--18X <--200OK with no refresher/session-expires or min-se ACK > <--INVITE with Session-Expires: 3700;refresher=