Re: [Sip-implementors] Changing in "o=" field

2017-11-20 Thread Paul Kyzivat

On 11/20/17 5:27 AM, wisniawy wrote:

Hello
My Application Server sends a re-INVITE to the called party pointing in the SDP 
a Media Server instead of calling party IP address (included in original 
INVITE).
  
INVITE:

o=BroadWorks 204147 1 IN IP4 10.8.91.9
  
re-INVITE:

o=BroadWorks 204150 1 IN IP4 10.8.92.133
  
The re-INVITE is dropped by Mobile Switching Station (MSS) because the session-version ("1") of the new SDP offer is identical to the previous one.

My question is if the MSS behaviour is correct?
In my oppinion, as the  has changed, the session should be 
treated as a new one not as a modification of the old one.


The new offer is incorrect based on the following text from RFC3264:

   When issuing an offer that modifies the session,
   the "o=" line of the new SDP MUST be identical to that in the
   previous SDP, except that the version in the origin field MUST
   increment by one from the previous SDP.  If the version in the origin
   line does not increment, the SDP MUST be identical to the SDP with
   that version number.

Exactly what the recipient should do when this is violated is undefined. 
IIUC it is pretty typical to ignore the violation. But an implementation 
is justified in refusing it.


Thanks,
Paul
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors


[Sip-implementors] Changing in "o=" field

2017-11-20 Thread wisniawy
Hello
My Application Server sends a re-INVITE to the called party pointing in the SDP 
a Media Server instead of calling party IP address (included in original 
INVITE).
 
INVITE:
o=BroadWorks 204147 1 IN IP4 10.8.91.9
 
re-INVITE:
o=BroadWorks 204150 1 IN IP4 10.8.92.133
 
The re-INVITE is dropped by Mobile Switching Station (MSS) because the 
session-version ("1") of the new SDP offer is identical to the previous one.
My question is if the MSS behaviour is correct?
In my oppinion, as the  has changed, the session should be 
treated as a new one not as a modification of the old one.
 
Regards
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors