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
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
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 intended as
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
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
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
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
___
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
|
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
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 request?
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]
UAC
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,
15 matches
Mail list logo
