<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Its to update the caller id information. you can disable this:<div><br></div><div><a href="http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Sofia.conf.xml#send-display-update">http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Sofia.conf.xml#send-display-update</a></div><div><br></div><div>Mike</div><div><br><div><div>On Jan 9, 2013, at 4:48 AM, Michel Brabants <<a href="mailto:michel.brabants@gmail.com">michel.brabants@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">No, freeswitch is not getting a response as the client (B2B sipserver) converts this to a reinvite with no sdp (which is incorrect of course). However, if I need to wait in the client-developers to fix this, I'll be a half year further...<br>
<br>I was wondering however why freeswitch is sending these in the first place as it contains no differences from previous sdp's. It isn't also sending updates or reinvites to the other side. I don't see the purpose of these updates. If it was to change the code, ... it would be better in this case as freeswitch could send reinvites instead as these wouldn't be handled incorrectly normally by the client.<br>
<br><br>Michel<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Steven Ayre <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steveayre@gmail.com" target="_blank">steveayre@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
Yep my mistake... rather I meant is FS getting a response?<br>
(Wondering if FS is retransmitting and/or timing out the call on no<br>
response since you say it hangs up 30s later)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 8 January 2013 20:46, Kristian Kielhofner <<a href="mailto:kris@kriskinc.com">kris@kriskinc.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> The correct positive response to an UPDATE would be a 200 that is then<br>
> ACKd. See RFC 3311:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3311" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3311</a><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Steven Ayre <<a href="mailto:steveayre@gmail.com">steveayre@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Does the client send an ACK for the UPDATE?<br>
>><br>
></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>