9 Mar
2005
9 Mar
'05
12:04 p.m.
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 02:17, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
At 11:04 PM 3/8/2005, Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
I did not wanted to write down this special case, but I feared that someone
will come up with it :-)
But in this special case you will also have to watch out for the replies, if
they contain a Session-Expires header. The draft gives a fairly good overview
what a new SER module would have to do ;-) (although it should also be doable
in the script itself).
Greetings
Nils
Both UA's have to support the Session-Timer
draft, otherwise the inserted
Session-Expires Header will simply be ignored and you will never see any
re-INVITE's. But if both UA's support the Session-Timer they should
normaly agree on using automatically by looking at the Supported header.
So in my opinion there is no extra value in adding a Session-Expires
header to a request at a proxy.
That's actually not correct. It is sufficient in one UA supports ST. It is
up to proxy server to handle the case correctly. We do that and there are
reasonable use cases.