Thanks, I value your opinion very much !
BR/pj
Sensitivity: Internal
-Original Message-
From: Paul Kyzivat
Sent: den 23 februari 2021 20:05
To: Sundbaum Per-Johan (Telenor Sverige AB) ;
sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 400 BadRequest
On 2/23/21
--
BR/pj
Sensitivity: Internal
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: den 23 februari 2021 17:41
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 400 BadRequest
On 2/22/2
--
BR/pj
Sensitivity: Internal
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: den 23 februari 2021 17:41
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 400 BadRequest
On 2/22/21 9
On 2/22/21 9:09 AM, Sundbaum Per-Johan (Telenor Sverige AB) wrote:
Hi again !
Correction, there are of course not any "require: 100Rel" in INVITE, sorry I
mixed things up !
BR/pj
We have a vendor that is saying that they correctly answers initial INVITE with 400 BadRequest
because the INVITE
Hi again !
Correction, there are of course not any "require: 100Rel" in INVITE, sorry I
mixed things up !
BR/pj
We have a vendor that is saying that they correctly answers initial INVITE with
400 BadRequest because the INVITE have SIP header "supported: precondition" and
also required:
Hi !
We have a vendor that is saying that they correctly answers initial INVITE with
400 BadRequest because the INVITE have SIP header "supported: precondition" and
also required: 100rel", but not the equivalent QOS parameters in SDP.
Personally I think that this behavior is definitely against
