Re: [Sip-implementors] Query on RFC 3680.

2008-12-06 Thread P Sudarshanakrishnan-A14377
Assuming A registers contacts A1, A2. When a network entity initiates a notification I am not sure if there is a possibility that it indicates different attributes (say rejected for A1 and probation for A2) for the individual contacts A1 & A2. If the device register the same expires value for A1

Re: [Sip-implementors] Proper negative final status code for malformed SDP

2008-12-06 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Neelakantan Balasubramanian wrote: > Looking at RFC 3261, 400 Bad request is a better response. A Reason/Warning > header can be added in the response. > > 21.4.1 400 Bad Request >The request could not be understood due to malformed syntax. The >Reason-Phrase SHOULD identify the syntax

Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP - SRV records for High Availability

2008-12-06 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Sábado, 6 de Diciembre de 2008, Vikas Sharma escribió: > hi > I am new to sip. > I require SRV SIP records for a particular service in HA. > > and how can achieve the load balancing. > any guide RFC 3263 -- Iñaki Baz Castillo ___ Sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] Proper negative final status code for malformed SDP

2008-12-06 Thread Neelakantan Balasubramanian
Looking at RFC 3261, 400 Bad request is a better response. A Reason/Warning header can be added in the response. 21.4.1 400 Bad Request The request could not be understood due to malformed syntax. The Reason-Phrase SHOULD identify the syntax problem in more detail, for example, "Missi