I'd do 305 in this one, but that's just my 2 cents.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:16 AM, isshed wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as follows.
>
> m=audio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n
> a=fmtp:18 annexb=yes\r\n
> a=fmtp:101 0-15\r\n
> a=rtpmap:100 UNACCEP
Hi All,
If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as follows.
m=audio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n
a=fmtp:18 annexb=yes\r\n
a=fmtp:101 0-15\r\n
a=rtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n
a=sendrecv
the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 with a warning header
as follo
You can do that, there is no restriction on that.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Sumin Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Harsha.
>
> My first question is about the purpose of Warning header.
> Can I user this Warning header only for specifying SDP related
> information?
>
> Instead of Rea
Thanks Harsha.
My first question is about the purpose of Warning header.
Can I user this Warning header only for specifying SDP related information?
Instead of Reason-Phrase, I want more systematic way. I want to assign
warning code to each case and based on that warning code, our cutomized UA
sh
Sumin,
Just a thought. RFC 3261 does not impose restricitons on the
"Reason-Phrase" in the Status line of the SIP Response
In that case you can use that itself.
Ex:
504 .
The contents within <> can be chosen according to your need.
Ofcourse for this to be useful anywhere, the UA needs to look
Hi All,
I have a question regarding Warning header.
Here is a quote from rfc 3261.
Warning codes provide information supplemental to the status code in
SIP response messages when the failure of the transaction results
from a Session Description Protocol (SDP) (RFC 2327 [1]) problem.
Can
