>>Should my softphone include header fields Session-Expires >>and Min-SE into this re-INVITE request? >>The answer for the side performing refreshes is obvious >>according the paragraph "7.4. Generating Subsequent Session >>Refresh Requests". But I am not sure about correct behavior >>for the side not performing refreshes if it wishes to do a re-INVITE.
If you send a re-INVITE then you have effectively performed the refresh request. It doesn't matter if you are the negotiated refresher or not. ANY re-INVITE or UPDATE will refresh the session. So you still need to follow the rules of 7.4. In particular If the session refresh request is not the initial one, it is RECOMMENDED that the refresher parameter be set to 'uac' if the element sending the request is currently performing refreshes, and to 'uas' if its peer is performing the refreshes. so at the very least, you should have: Require: timer Session-Expires: xxxx;refresher=uas where xxxx is the last successfully negotiated session interval. Regards, Attlia >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf >> Of Igor Vanin >> Sent: 24 November 2006 13:06 >> To: vinodk; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Session timer: re-INVITE on >> the passive >> side >> >> >> Hello, vinodk >> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:47:37 +0530 "vinodk" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote to "Igor Vanin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> v> Your soft phone has timer Extension enabled and remote >> Soft phone is >> v> the Refresher. It means your soft phone should not send >> INVITE with >> v> Session-Expires header. If you sending call Hold INVITE >> restrict it >> v> only for Hold .Don't add Any headers related Timer >> Extension for Hold >> v> Transaction. I feel this way you clearly isolate the >> v> interdependency. >> >> Vinod, thank you for your suggestion. >> But I have received several opposed responses to my question, >> they say that my phone should include Session-Expires and Min-SE >> headers into the re-INVITE, otherwise session timer mechanism >> may be stopped for that dialog because of lack of these headers. >> So, I am still in doubts, both answers look reasonable... >> >> PS. I am responding back to mailing list because I have received >> many replies by the personal mail. >> >> ------------------------------------ >> v> Igor Vanin wrote: >> >> Let's suppose the following call scenario: >> >> My softphone has an active call session with the Session Timer >> >> extension (RFC4028) enabled, and the current refresher of this >> >> session is the remote softphone (so, my softphone is the side not >> >> performing refreshes). Now my softphone wishes to do a re-INVITE >> >> (for example, for put the call on hold). >> >> >> >> Should my softphone include header fields Session-Expires >> and Min-SE >> >> into this re-INVITE request? The answer for the side performing >> >> refreshes is obvious according the paragraph "7.4. Generating >> >> Subsequent Session Refresh Requests". But I am not sure >> about correct >> >> behavior for the side not performing refreshes if it >> wishes to do a >> >> re-INVITE. >> >> -- >> With best regards, Igor Vanin, St. Petersburg, Russia >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gpmail.spb.ru >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sip-implementors mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
