> How about defining a new 4xx 'Session Interval Too Large' > response code with similar semantics such as 422 ?
Feel free to propose something to SIPCORE or DISPATCH. If I recall the discussions correctly from 10 years ago, the idea was rejected because the Min-SE was actually the minimum. Thus if someone was willing to use a lower Min-SE value, they would not have required the higher Min-SE. > We have seen that at times UA cannot upfront put the > *correct* MinSE value based on corresponding values > at downstream proxies. If the UA doesn't know the correct Min-SE or has no minimum, it should not include the header (unless including it per RFC 4028's rules such as because received a 422). > 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. If the UAC and proxy chain were willing to accommodate a lower Min-SE, they would not have previously explicitly required the higher Min-SE. This of course assumes that the devices involved with any prior Min-SE/422 negotiations are actually still involved. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
