Hi,
Thanks for your responses.
In my opinion, there are three options to handle this Re-INVITE
1. Respond to Re-INVITE with 4xx say 403 Forbidden
However as, Paul pointed out, reinviting with c=0 and/or a=sendonly is
all legal.
2. Give precedence to c=0.0.0.0 over a=recvonly
Put the call
Subbu Rajendran wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your responses.
In my opinion, there are three options to handle this Re-INVITE
1. Respond to Re-INVITE with 4xx say 403 Forbidden
However as, Paul pointed out, reinviting with c=0 and/or a=sendonly is
all legal.
This is very bad response.
2.
UPDATE is allowed; however it might fail if there are offer/answer
issues. More specifically a non reliable 18x with SDP does not complete
an offer/answer; thus an UPDATE with SDP would be rejected.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
UPDATE RFC3311 mentions it does not affect dialog state (eg in Abstract:
has no impact on the state of a dialog). But the RFC later mentions
that UPDATE can update remote target (eg quote: UPDATE is a target
refresh request. As specified in RFC 3261 [1], this means that it can
update the remote
Hello All,
Please let me know the behavior for the below cases.
I believe 'm=' line is not mandatory according to rfc 4566
Still It was decided to release the session in our application.
case1:
Invite is received with SDP, and has no 'm=' line.
In case we need to reject such an Invite,
what is
Sdp w/o m line is the recommended usage in 3pcc,
See RFC3725 sec4.4, if you would like better interop, you'd better not
reject this.
If you do need reject, I think 606 Not Acceptable might be better for
case1, and your handling for case2 is fine to me.
-Rockson
-Original Message-
From:
Inline with [SSS]
Somesh S Shanbhag
M G L Bangalore
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of karthik karthik
Sent: Fri 10/31/2008 11:05 AM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] sdp with missing m line
Hello All,
Please let me know the
