>
> It does look like the recommended behavior when SDP appears in a location
where it is unexpected is to ignore it. E.g., the last paragraph of section
3.1.1 draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-12:
>
> The UAS does not include SDP in responses F9 and F12. However, the
> UAC should prepare to
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of neil corcoran
[n...@corcoran.name]
In an established session we receive a re-INVITE with an SDP offer
we respond with a 200 with an SDP answ
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer
neil corcoran wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In an established session we receive a re-INVITE with an SDP offer
> we respond with a 200 with an SDP answer
> and the far end sends an ACK with a copy of the original SDP offer
> which is out of t
Behalf Of
neil corcoran
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:15 PM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] re-INVITE ACK clarification
Hi,
In an established session we receive a re-INVITE with an SDP offer we
respond with a 200 with an SDP answer and the far end sends an
Hi,
In an established session we receive a re-INVITE with an SDP offer
we respond with a 200 with an SDP answer
and the far end sends an ACK with a copy of the original SDP offer
which is out of the ordinary for our software and caused our end to crash.
I am inclined to pretend that the SDP in the
