How about defining a new 4xx* '*Session Interval Too Large' response code with similar semantics such as 422 ?
We have seen that at times UA cannot upfront put the *correct* MinSE value based on corresponding values at downstream proxies. I believe similar rationale is used while defining 422 response code. This can result is successful session establishment in cases where UAC can accommodate this change. Regards, Harbhanu On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Brett Tate <[email protected]> wrote: > > AFAIK RFC-4028 defines that proxy can reject with 422 > > to define a *higher minimum* for session timer but > > wondering why there is no provision to define a > > *lower maximum*. Does it never form a valid use-case ? > > It is a valid use case. The two devices are not interoperable within the > specific deployment. The caller or prior proxy requires Min-SE to be > higher than the maximum Session-Expires of another proxy. If the proxy > refuses to accommodate the larger Session-Expires, it can reject the INVITE > with 403 (or another response) or allow the call to be setup and > potentially have issues caused by the proxy expiring the dialog. > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
