Precisely, IMO too RFC doesn't specify UAC behavior for this situation. So, we think that in order to have a better error tolerance or say flexibility, this behavior SHOULD be fine.
So can anybody suggest/highlight any scenario/use-case wherein this 'tolerance' might prove otherwise? :-) Also, please specify if you are aware of its handling in any of the commercial implementations. Thanks again!! Regards, Harbhanu **************************************************************************** ************************************************************************ This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! _____ From: Brett Tate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:46 PM To: Harbhanu; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Sip] Reg. refresher param in 2xx response If 2xx's session-expires doesn't contain the mandatory refresher parameter, it is likely because interworking with an old implementation of the draft: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-ietf-sip-session-timer/ The refresher parameter was added within version 5 of the draft. Per RFC4028, it is an abnormal situation; I don't recall the RFC indicating how to act within the abnormal situation. Thus you can however you want. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harbhanu Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Sip] Reg. refresher param in 2xx response As per 4028, for the following case UAS MUST specify the refresher parameter in 2xx response. UAC ----INV ----> supported=timer, SE=90-----> UAS UAC <----2XX INV -- SE=90- ---------------- UAS [Section-9, page-16] The UAS MUST set the value of the refresher parameter in the Session-Expires header field in the 2xx response. But IMO when UE sends response for INVITE and it adds Session-Expires but doesn't specify the refresher parameter. Then in this case UAC can safely assume that, either the UAS doesn't support session-timer or it doesn't want to act as a 'refresher'. So instead of sending a BYE UAC MAY treat this as a buggy/naive UE & hence "UAC" SHOULD act as 'refresher'. Please share your opinion. Thanks! Regards, Harbhanu **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ********************************* This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation. Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip. Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.
