9 Mar
2005
9 Mar
'05
5:13 p.m.
At 11:04 AM 3/9/2005, Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 02:17, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
As a matter of fact, it is actually the regular case whcih we deployed in
production networks. It was just a script thing. I'm currently having
difficulties accessing my home server to send out some examples but there
are such.
-jiri
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 :-) 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.