Thank you, Tate. Your advice make me clear.
And Castillo, your advice was very helpful, too. Thank you. >> In summary, >> an (re)INVITE sometimes need an judgement by a human user, >> while an UPDATE need NOT it, that response automatecally. >> >> By the way, >> which RFC that is written in and where is written? > > The following is snippet from rfc3311 section 5.1: > > "Although UPDATE can be used on confirmed dialogs, it is RECOMMENDED that a > re-INVITE be used instead. This is because an UPDATE needs to be answered > immediately, ruling out the possibility of user approval. Such approval will > frequently be needed, and is possible with a re-INVITE." > > > The following is snippet from rfc3311 section 5.2: > > "However, unlike a re-INVITE, the UPDATE MUST be responded to promptly, and > therefore the user cannot generally be prompted to approve the session > changes. If the UAS cannot change the session parameters without prompting > the user, it SHOULD reject the request with a 504 response." > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
