Hi, The following RFC 3311 snippets indicate why re-INVITE is recommended instead of UPDATE. Some of the common UPDATE failures are 504, 491, 481, 488, and 500 (with Retry-After); see RFC 3311 for more details. You may also be interested in RFC 6141, RFC 6337, and RFC 3264.
"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." "If the UAS cannot change the session parameters without prompting the user, it SHOULD reject the request with a 504 response." > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Tarun2 Gupta > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 12:41 AM > To: Tamjid Ali; Sip-implementors > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] UPDATE instead of re-INVITE > > Hi > > 1 thing that I can think of is that the UAS might not support Update > (the UAS can indicate its support of Update through an Allow header in > 200 OK of Invite) > > Regards > Tarun Gupta > Aricent > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Tamjid Ali > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:11 PM > To: Sip-implementors > Subject: [Sip-implementors] UPDATE instead of re-INVITE > > Hi All, > Can anyone please explain if we are using UPDATE instead of re-INVITE > for call hold what are the problem may occurred? > thanks to all in advance. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
