for codec mismatch
at end
On 10/28/2010 4:23 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>
> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>[sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of kaiduan xie
>[kaidu...@yahoo.ca]
>
Thanks Praveen. I saw some PBX from a big vendor returns 503.
Best regards,
/Kaiduan
From: praveena ss
To: kaiduan xie
Cc: "sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu"
Sent: Thu, October 28, 2010 4:12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Respons
Hi,
Consider the following case, A sends an offer with codec G.729 only, and B does
not support it, what is the best response code? 415/488 is not for this case
from rfc3261.
21.4.13 415 Unsupported Media Type
The server is refusing to service the request because the message
body of the
Try oSIP. It's parser does not support multi-thread, but you can run
transaction
layer, and transport layer into different threads.
Kaiduan
- Original Message
From: marius zbihlei
To: Vinod Parameswaran
Cc: sip-implementors
Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 5:09:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Sip-
Why not use oSIP then?
--- On Thu, 2/4/10, Premalatha Kuppan wrote:
> From: Premalatha Kuppan
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] sip stack
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Received: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 1:29 AM
> Regarding SIP Open Source:
>
> Can i take Sip stack alone (chan_
- Original Message
From: Dale Worley
To: kaiduan xie
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:57:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] in-active in answer with sendonly in offer
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 11:42 -0800, kaiduan xie wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> Wh
Hi, all,
What is the purpose of putting inactive in answer when receiving a sendonly
offer? Rfc3264 Section 6.1 says,
"If a stream is offered as sendonly, the corresponding stream MUST be
marked as recvonly or inactive in the answer."
In rfc5359, recvonly is returned in hold case.
Thanks
->|
Thanks,
kaiduan
- Original Message
From: Paul Kyzivat
To: M. Ranganathan
Cc: kaiduan xie ; "sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu"
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:57:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] PRAC/B2BUA
The B2BUA has the burden of m
But how B2BUA generates SDP answer to be carried in PRACK?
- Original Message
From: Neelakantan Balasubramanian
To: kaiduan xie ; "sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu"
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:18:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] PRAC/B2BUA
Hi, all,
An inter-operation problem is encountered, the scenario is,
UA 1B2BUAGW
| INVITE-1 ||
|>| INVITE-2 |
| |--->|
| | 183-3
what the other guy wants."
This is very insightful. Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation.
kaiduan
- Original Message
From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: kaiduan xie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Hi, all,
Consider the following case, what are the right values in SDP in INVITE/200?
A B
| INVITE/SDP1 |
|-->|
| 200/SDP2 |
|<--|
| ACK |
|-->|
...
Is the following case legal?
UAC UAS
INVITE/SDP --->
< 200/SDP,
UPDATE/SDP >
< 200 for UPDATE/SDP
ACK(no SDP) -->
There is no PRACK in the call flow.
Thanks,
kaiduan
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
