I guess that depends on your interpretation of integral to the usage. If the UA is using UPDATE which includes SDP to modify the session parameters, it is important for that session. What is the UA supposed to do? It was told that it could use UPDATE, so it did. Is it supposed to try UPDATE and then if that fails use INVITE? Why would UPDATE be OK at the beginning of the session and then not be OK later? If there were no other transactions that included an Allow header, how is the UA supposed to know that it is not OK now? If that is the case, then the Allow header is useless.
It just does not make sense. cheers, (-:bob -----Original Message----- From: Brett Tate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:52 AM To: Bob Penfield; Kashif Husain; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] 405 response for UPDATE If UPDATE was integral to the INVITE usage, it would have been defined within RFC 3261. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Penfield [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:50 AM > To: Brett Tate; Kashif Husain; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] 405 response for UPDATE > > Then does that mean the RFC 5057 is incorrect when it says: > > (3) 405 Method Not Allowed: > > 501 Not Implemented: > > Either of these responses would be aberrant in our example > scenario since support for the NOTIFY method is required by the > usage. In this case, the UA knows the condition is unrecoverable > and should stop sending NOTIFYs on the usage. Any refresh > subscriptions should be rejected. In general, these errors will > affect at most the usage. If the request was not integral to the > usage (it used an unknown method, or was an INFO inside an INVITE > usage, for example), only the transaction will be affected. > > Typically UPDATE is integral to the INVITE usage. > > > cheers, > (-:bob > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Brett Tate > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:46 AM > To: Kashif Husain; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 405 response for UPDATE > > > Is this a valid behavior? > > Is it allowed to send 405 in this scenario? > > Yes; the behavior is valid. Just because UPDATE was allowed, it > doesn't mean that it must continue to be allowed. > > However, the behavior that you are describing is more prevent with > B2BUAs reconnecting dialogs that do and don't support UPDATE. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
