Re: [reSIProcate] rfc 3311 update in confirmed dialogs

["Scott Godin" <slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

DUM behaves the way it does due to recommendations in RFC4028 (7.1) - preferring UPDATE as opposed to re-INVITE for session timers. 

 

Do you have a use case where user interaction is required for a re-invite that would make using a re-invite a requirement for DUM SDP negotiations?

 

Scott

 

From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Justin Matthews
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:33 PM
To: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [reSIProcate] rfc 3311 update in confirmed dialogs

 

Section 5.1 of 3311 states: “Although UPDATE can be used on confirmed

   dialogs, it is RECOMMENDED that a re-INVITE be used instead.”. 

 

It looks like DUM will send an UPDATE in the connected state (InviteSession::provideOffer).  Should DUM, by default, use UPDATE in early dialogs and use re-INVITE for confirmed dialogs?

 

Thanks,

 

-Justin