Hi Nitin,
Please find the explanation below which states that the increament is always
done by 1 as per RFC.
RFC 4566:
5.2.
Origin ("o=")
o=
is a version number for this
session description. Its usage is up to the creating tool, so long
as is
increased
> "PK" == Paul Kyzivat writes:
PK> If you give out only URIs with domain names, then that is what
PK> clients should be using.
PK> Only servers that are "responsible for the domain" are permitted to
PK> translate those URIs.
Thanks. That is what I expected when I wrote the validation code,
On 7/14/14 7:06 PM, NK wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks!!. Yes i checked 3264 and it says it should be increment by 1.
However i am more concerned that if there is re invite and in 200 OK
SDP(in the correspondence of re-invite) there is no change as compare to
previous SDP then also should increment by
Hi Paul,
Thanks!!. Yes i checked 3264 and it says it should be increment by 1.
However i am more concerned that if there is re invite and in 200 OK SDP(in
the correspondence of re-invite) there is no change as compare to previous
SDP then also should increment by 1?
Regards,
Nitin Kapoor
On M
On 7/14/14 6:14 PM, NK wrote:
Dear All,
I have query regarding the Session version in SDP. I know if we are making
any changes in SDP then from 183 to 200OK with SDP then there will be
increment in session version from 183 to 200 OK
. However i have 2 doubt as below. Can you please help
me on
Dear All,
I have query regarding the Session version in SDP. I know if we are making
any changes in SDP then from 183 to 200OK with SDP then there will be
increment in session version from 183 to 200 OK
. However i have 2 doubt as below. Can you please help
me on this.
1) Is that Value should b
Hi Brett,
Thanks a lot for your help!!
Regards,
Nitin Kapoor
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Brett Tate wrote:
> > is that 2~3 183 w/sdp is valid and call can be processed?
>
> Yes; it is valid. However, RFC 6337 recommends to not include the SDP.
>
> Maybe you will find the following snipp
On 7/13/14 8:46 PM, James Cloos wrote:
I've noticed that all of the fraud attempts which come to my advertized
SRV destinations use ip addresses for the To and From headers and for the
INVITE line.
My code to verify that INVITEd addresses are valid expects domain names
or hostnames, not ip addre
