Then does that mean the RFC 5057 is incorrect when it says:
(3) 405 Method Not Allowed:
501 Not Implemented:
Either of these responses would be aberrant in our example
scenario since support for the NOTIFY method is required by the
usage. In this case, the UA knows the condition is unrecoverable
and should stop sending NOTIFYs on the usage. Any refresh
subscriptions should be rejected. In general, these errors will
affect at most the usage. If the request was not integral to the
usage (it used an unknown method, or was an INFO inside an INVITE
usage, for example), only the transaction will be affected.
Typically UPDATE is integral to the INVITE usage.
cheers,
(-:bob
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brett Tate
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:46 AM
To: Kashif Husain; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 405 response for UPDATE
> Is this a valid behavior?
> Is it allowed to send 405 in this scenario?
Yes; the behavior is valid. Just because UPDATE was allowed, it doesn't mean
that it must continue to be allowed.
However, the behavior that you are describing is more prevent with B2BUAs
reconnecting dialogs that do and don't support UPDATE.
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
