[SIPForum-discussion] Discussion on update.

Ravi Siebel ravi_siebel at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 27 06:34:46 UTC 2007

Here, the UPDATE is meant for only refreshing the existing dialog. 
  Suppose the response for the previous UPDATE has been dropped due to intermediate servers are down.Hence the UAC can easily send the second UPDATE irrespective of the previous UPDATE.

jagmohan chauhan <jagmohan.chauhan at aricent.com> wrote:

Hi all 
According to RFC 3311 
A UAS that receives an UPDATE before it has generated a final response to a previous UPDATE on the same dialog MUST return a 500 response to the new UPDATE, and MUST include a Retry-After header field with a randomly chosen value between 0 and 10 seconds. 

I could not understand that how a UAC can generate another update until it has received the 200 OK response for previous update. 

Jagmohan Chauhan
Extn no: 5158

***********************  Aricent- Confidential   ***********************         
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent  and is intended solely for the use of   the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be   circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error,   please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly  prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for   loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus."  
This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20071226/0d68f2e8/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the discussion mailing list