If a UA wants to support UPDATEs for session timer refreshes only (RFC 4028) and it always includes an Allow header, should it advertise support for UPDATE or not? If it does, this implies full support of RFC 3311. But if the UA does advertise UPDATE support, it would need to reject any UPDATE that includes a body. What would that response look like (405, 488, ???)? What if such an UPDATE included a refresh along with a body. What would the rejection say about the success or failure of the timer refresh? Would this behavior have any affect on potential re-INVITE behavior (i.e. the remote UA says "Hey, no support for any body type - so, I can't even reINVITE)? Might the remote UA just terminate the dialog in this case? Or, should the local UA not include UPDATE in an Allow header, but process a session timer refresh in an UPDATE if it gets one (and reject ones with a body with a 405)? If the local UA does not advertise UPDATE support, then will the remote UA even bother to send UPDATEs for timer refreshes?
Barry Ostroff Magpie Telecom Insiders _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
