There was a typo in the email. Sorry. Resending. There are two scenarios to consider.
1) Say UA A supports session timer and the UA B doesn't support. In this case, whenever UA B sends Re-INVITE due to hold need not have Session-Expires and Min-SE header. 2) If UA A and UA B supports Session Timer (via Supported/Require header), then, any Re-INVITE by UA B should include as it is aware of Session Timer. Thanks, Neel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bala Neelakantan Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:40 PM To: 'Igor Vanin'; 'vinodk'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Session timer: re-INVITE on the passive side There are two scenarios to consider. 1) Say UA A supports session timer and the UA B doesn't support. In this case, whenever UA B sends Re-INVITE due to hold need not have Session-Expires and Min-SE header. 2) If UA A and UA B supports Session Timer (via Supported/Require header), then, any Re-INVITE by UA B should include as it is not aware of Session Timer. Thanks, Neel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Igor Vanin Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:06 AM 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 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
