On 01/14/2011 01:39 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 13 jan 2011 kl. 23.36 skrev Paul Kyzivat:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/13/2011 10:38 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>> 2011/1/13 Olle E. Johansson:
- Does your UA add an SDP to a 488 error message?
>>>
>>> Most probably no UA in the world adds SDP to a 4
13 jan 2011 kl. 23.36 skrev Paul Kyzivat:
>
>
> On 1/13/2011 10:38 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> 2011/1/13 Olle E. Johansson:
>>> - Does your UA add an SDP to a 488 error message?
>>
>> Most probably no UA in the world adds SDP to a 488 response.
>
> I don't know, but I suspect you are rig
On 1/13/2011 10:38 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/1/13 Olle E. Johansson:
>> - Does your UA add an SDP to a 488 error message?
>
> Most probably no UA in the world adds SDP to a 488 response.
I don't know, but I suspect you are right, or nearly so.
> And for sure, no UA in the galaxy woul
2011/1/13 Olle E. Johansson :
> - Does your UA add an SDP to a 488 error message?
Most probably no UA in the world adds SDP to a 488 response.
And for sure, no UA in the galaxy would inspect/interpret a SDP in a
488 response, at least not within next 20 years.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
__
On 01/13/2011 08:57 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 13 jan 2011 kl. 15.36 skrev Paul Kyzivat:
>
>> Also, the following from the description of 488:
>>
>>A message body containing a description of media capabilities MAY be
>>present in the response, which is formatted according to the Accep
13 jan 2011 kl. 15.36 skrev Paul Kyzivat:
> Also, the following from the description of 488:
>
> A message body containing a description of media capabilities MAY be
> present in the response, which is formatted according to the Accept
> header field in the INVITE (or application/sdp if no
Also, the following from the description of 488:
A message body containing a description of media capabilities MAY be
present in the response, which is formatted according to the Accept
header field in the INVITE (or application/sdp if not present), the
same as a message body in a
11 jan 2011 kl. 11.20 skrev Saúl Ibarra Corretgé:
>> I thought of that - but what would we put there that everyone could support?
>>
>
> For the codec related 488, a 305 "Incompatible media format" could be
> used. For IPv4/IPv6 stuff, 300 "Incompatible network protocol" or 301
> "Incompatible
> I thought of that - but what would we put there that everyone could support?
>
For the codec related 488, a 305 "Incompatible media format" could be
used. For IPv4/IPv6 stuff, 300 "Incompatible network protocol" or 301
"Incompatible network address formats" could help.
If none of them suit the
10 jan 2011 kl. 22.19 skrev Saúl Ibarra Corretgé:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>
>> 10 jan 2011 kl. 14.07 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:
>>
>>> On 01/10/2011 03:59 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
The draft changes the SDP offer/answer model so that an answer has to u
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 10 jan 2011 kl. 14.07 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:
>
>> On 01/10/2011 03:59 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>> The draft changes the SDP offer/answer model so that an answer has to use
>>> the same protocol family (ipv4/ipv6) as the offer, wh
10 jan 2011 kl. 18.28 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:
> On 01/10/2011 11:08 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>
>> 10 jan 2011 kl. 14.07 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:
>>
>>> On 01/10/2011 03:59 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
The draft changes the SDP offer/answer model so that an answer has to use
the s
On 01/10/2011 11:08 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 10 jan 2011 kl. 14.07 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:
>
>> On 01/10/2011 03:59 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>> The draft changes the SDP offer/answer model so that an answer has to use
>>> the same protocol family (ipv4/ipv6) as the offer, which makes
10 jan 2011 kl. 14.07 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:
> On 01/10/2011 03:59 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>> The draft changes the SDP offer/answer model so that an answer has to use
>> the same protocol family (ipv4/ipv6) as the offer, which makes sense.
>>
>>
>> Two things remain unclear to me:
>>
>
On 01/10/2011 03:59 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> The draft changes the SDP offer/answer model so that an answer has to use the
> same protocol family (ipv4/ipv6) as the offer, which makes sense.
>
>
> Two things remain unclear to me:
>
> - If I get an offer for media based on an address family I
The draft changes the SDP offer/answer model so that an answer has to use the
same protocol family (ipv4/ipv6) as the offer, which makes sense.
Two things remain unclear to me:
- If I get an offer for media based on an address family I can not understand -
what's the valid response?
If it's
16 matches
Mail list logo
