Hi,
My reading is that 200 OK to INVITE with Require:timer but no
Session-Expires is illegal. Therefore, I would choose to ACK - BYE it.
From RFC 4028 section 7.2 - UAC Behaviour - Processing a 2xx Response:
If there was a Require header field in the response with the value
'timer', the Session-Expires header field will always be present.
Regards,
Balint Menyhart
On 16/07/2013 10:06, Tarun2 Gupta wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Need inputs in the following scenario (wrt UAS)
>
> - INVITE received with Session-Expires, Min-SE, Supported:timer, no refresher
> is present
> - 183 sent with Supported:timer
> - UPDATE received with *no* Session-Expires, *no* Min-SE, Supported:timer, no
> refresher is present
> - 200 OK of UPDATE sent with *no* Session-Expires, *no* Min-SE,
> Supported:timer, no refresher is present
> - 200 OK of INVITE sent with *no* Session-Expires, *no* Min-SE,
> Supported:timer, Require:timer, no refresher is present
>
> My questions are:
> - Does receipt of UPDATE with no session timer values turn off the session
> expiration? Is the UAC saying that it does not support session timer now?
> - Who shall refresh the session in the above case (if any)?
> - Does the UAS need to run a session timer (since it has not sent session
> timer values in 200 OK of UPDATE and INVITE)?
>
> Regards
> Tarun Gupta
> Aricent
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================================================
> Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
> for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
> ===============================================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
