[reSIProcate] rfc 3311 update in confirmed dialogs

[Scott Godin]

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 at list.resiprocate.org
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces at list.resiprocate.org] On Behalf Of
Justin Matthews
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:33 PM
To: resiprocate-devel at list.resiprocate.org
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20070705/d877d312/attachment.htm>