Hi,
Thanks for the response. We have asked the supplier to explain the 480, but I'm asking more as a question of sip rfc compliance with regards to the reinvite i'm not sure what you mean by this: "Concerning RFC 4028, the session expiration stuff is negotiated again with every re-INVITE and UPDATE" 4028 is clear that the supported header in the initial INVITE indicates whether or not refreshers are supported by the UAC. In this case, there is no Supported header in the initial INVITE, so it can be assumed that the A-side does not support refreshers. That being the case, is the B-side allowed to sending the Session-Expires: 3700;refresher=uac and Min-SE: 600 in the re-invite? Regards, RSW On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Brett Tate <[email protected]> wrote: > > We suspect that the re-INVITE is what's causing the 480. > > <snip> > > > This scenario does not seem clear in RFC 4028. can someone > > please clarify and provide proof? > > Concerning returning 480 to mid-dialog requests such as re-INVITE, RFC > 5057 indicates that RFC 3261 is unclear about what it means. You might > want to ask the vendor why they are returning 480; they might not like how > RFC 5057 indicates to handle it. > > Concerning RFC 4028, the session expiration stuff is negotiated again with > every re-INVITE and UPDATE. For instance, section 7.1 indicates the > following. > > "The UAC MAY include the refresher parameter with value 'uac' if it > wants to perform the refreshes. However, it is RECOMMENDED that the > parameter be omitted so that it can be selected by the negotiation > mechanisms described below." > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
