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 with Session-Expires: 3700;refresher=uac and Min-SE: 600
480 ----->
We suspect that the re-INVITE is what's causing the 480.
It is hard for me to fathom why 480 is being returned.
What does A expect to happen as a result of this. It is a very bad choice.
my colleague is
under the impression that the B-side re-INVITE should not contain any
refresher since the A-side indicated that they do not support it in the
initial INVITE, and this b-side behavior is non-RFC-compliant .
Failing to explicitly indicate support for an option is *not* an
indication that the option is unsupported.
As Brett already commented, session timer is renegotiated with every
reINVITE. A should deal with the reINVITE, and handle it in accord with
4028. If A doesn't support session timer, then it should ignore the
Session-Expires and Min-SE headers. You didn't say whether the reINVITE
had Require:timer. I assume not. If it did, and A doesn't support it,
then it should have returned a 420 response.
Thanks,
Paul
My understanding is that this is alright as long as they set a min-se and
make themselves the refresher.
This scenario does not seem clear in RFC 4028. can someone please clarify
and provide proof?
Thanks in advance
RSW
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
