yeah agree with Brett .It should not be forbidden rather should be replied with SE and refresher parameter.
I think user A should have sent refresher role as UAS instead of UAC in 200ok of UPDATE to clearly say User A is acting as refresher as how he intended to be refresher in INVITE by putting UAC as per his local policy. It seems User A side has issues with changing refresher parameter based on transaction outgoing or incoming. Anyway 200ok of INVITE will finally decide the role and it should be UAC as INVITE was offering that as per table2(UAS behaviour) Regards Ankur Bansal On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Brett Tate <br...@broadsoft.com> wrote: > > I think a UAS is forbidden to include a Session-Expires header field in > > the > > UPDATE request and a UAC should reject it. > > In that case, the value of session refresher in 200 OK of INVITE MUST be > > uac. > > I'm not sure why you think that it is forbidden. > > RFC 4024 table 1 shows that Session-Expires is optional for UPDATE. > Section > 13 also shows Session-Expires within an UPDATE. > > RFC 4024 section 7.2 indicates the following: > > "Similarly, a re-INVITE or UPDATE request sent within a dialog for > purposes other than session refreshes will also have the effect of > refreshing the session, and its processing will follow the procedures > defined in this specification." > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
