Ranjit,

BTW, did you notice that there is an erata applying to section 9 of RFC4028? If you didn't notice, it might be confusing you.

On 5/28/21 5:59 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
On 5/28/21 4:40 PM, Ranjit Avasarala wrote:
Hi Holi

The RFC says UAS should add a Require: timer in response when UAC is the
refresher to indicate to UAC that it is the refresher. But I think this is
redundant as UAC anyway knows it is the refresher and does not need a
reminder from UAS.

The UAC makes an offer with Supported:timer and refresher=uac. That says it is *willing* to use timer, and is needs to be the refresher *if* timer is used for this call. At that point it is still uncertain whether timer will be used.

In the case where the UAS does support timer, it consummates the negotiation by including Require:timer and including refresher=uac as confirmation. It is the Require:timer that is the action that confirms timer is to be used. The refresher=uac is pro forma per Table 2 in that there is no choice in this case. But the UAC has to say *something* about it in the Session-Expires field.

     Thanks,
     Paul

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:18 PM Hoil Choi <hoil.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ranjit, thanks for taking a look.

However, I'm more interested in case where UAS is responding to UAC's
request with refresher as itself (uac).  Consider this case -

UAC ---- INVITE (Session-Expires: 1800;refresher=uac, Supported: timer)
----> UAS
UAC <---- 200 OK (Session-Expires: 1800;refresher=uac)
--------------------- UAS

In this case, the statement in question seems to convey that UAS should
also add "Require: timer" in its 200 response.  Why would this be, when
it's clear that UAC declared itself as the refresher and that timer is
supported?

For reference, RFC 4028 Section 9 UAS Behavior (or page 16)
If the refresher parameter in the Session-Expires header field in the 2xx
response has a value of 'uac', the UAS MUST place a Require header field
into the response with the value 'timer'.

Thanks,
Hoil

------------------------------
*From:* Ranjit Avasarala <ranjitka...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 12:38 PM
*To:* Hoil Choi <hoil.c...@hotmail.com>;
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu <
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
*Cc:* sipc...@ietf.org <sipc...@ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [sipcore] RFC 4028 UAS behavior requirement of Require
header

Hi Holi
the presence of the "Require" header with value "timer" from UAS indicates to UAC that it (UAC) is performing the refreshing operation. but if the UAS is the refresher, then if Require header with value "timer" is present in
response from UAS, then UAC should send BYE if it does not receive a
session refresh request from UAS.

Regards
Ranjit



On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:02 AM Hoil Choi <hoil.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

I hope this mail finds appropriate person or team for an answer to my
question on RFC 4028.
I am a SIP enthusiast and always learning a lot about it, but by no means
am I an expert; so please excuse my ignorance.

I came across an interesting statement In Section 9 UAS Behavior (or page
16).


If the refresher parameter in the Session-Expires header field in the
    2xx response has a value of 'uac', the UAS MUST place a Require
    header field into the response with the value 'timer'.


Statement seems to convey that UAS must place a Require header with value
'timer' when UAC requests itself to be the refresher.

However, this statement should only be true, if UAC did not put
Session-Expire with value of 'uac'.

If UAC, in INVITE request, put Session-Expire with value of 'uac'
(itself), UAS should not bother putting Require header field in the
response.  Or to be more accurate, UAC should include 'timer' in Supported
header, so that UAS doesn't have to bother putting Require header field.

What is the reason behind the requirement of Require header, from UAS in
this case?

Thanks!
Hoil Choi
253-273-5442

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
sipc...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsipcore&data=04%7C01%7C%7C4f68f91aa77847f0fb6508d922102eb4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637578275155641932%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=3McfrKwjz9RwC%2FBRLtdyopgzmNmUqsAKdAXyyRvChuc%3D&reserved=0>


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to