[reSIProcate] rfc 3311 update in confirmed dialogs

[Jason Fischl]

We will only send an UPDATE if the peer lists it as supported in the
response to the INVITE. Do you think this is still a problem? We will
not send UPDATE if the peer doesn't list it as a required or supported
method.

On 7/5/07, Justin Matthews <jmatthewsr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Scott. For correctness I believe the section in RFC4028 is 7.4.
>
>
>
> There is no use case or failed scenario, the question was just in regards to
> generally accepted behavior.  The main concern is vendors support for the
> UPDATE method to modify the sdp as opposed to re-INVITE.  With the recent
> change to add UPDATE as a default supported method, there is some, albeit
> small, concern over this. To date we have not used UPDATE.
>
>
>
> RFC3311 does not show that it is updated by 4028 on ietf.org and it seems
> 4028 is written in the spirit of session refreshes where it is desired to
> eliminate superfluous information.  Although, 4028 at the end of 7.4 does
> mention that UPDATE or re-invites not intended as session refreshes have the
> same effect as session refreshes.  Maybe 4028 should be listed as updating
> 3311.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification, I'm sure we will find that UPDATE when listed
> as a supported method is fully functional by all UA's we encounter.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> -Justin
>
>
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
>
>
> From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin at icescape.com]
>  Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:21 PM
>  To: Justin Matthews;
> resiprocate-devel at list.resiprocate.org
>  Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] rfc 3311 update in confirmed dialogs
>
>
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at list.resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>