> > > However, if you are the refresher > > > (which is what your question refers to) > > > then it is not so clear (and maybe just > > > plain wrong). Surely if one has sent > > > the INVITE and its retransmissions and > > > no response was received, then it must > > > be that the other end has experienced a > > > serious error. > > > > Not true. A proxy or something in the > > signaling path might be down or undergoing > > a restart. > > If this is the case the the refresher need > to go beyond 7 retransmissions. its a > violation of INVITE txn. Will this be OK ?????
It does not have go beyond the 7 retransmissions. It could start a timer to refresh at half the remaining time. Or it could start a timer to send the BYE at 10 seconds before expiration. > But the session refresh request is something > similar to re-invite request with an intention > to extend the session's life time.. > > I feel after 7 retransmissions for session > refrest request the BYE must have been sent > by the refresher. what is mentioned by Attila > Sipos perfectly meet all teh requirements. It follows the SHOULD of rfc3261 instead of the SHOULD of session-timer-11. However I was surprised to see the statement still in the draft since it introduces potential SHOULD conflict with rfc3261. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
