Thanks & Regards, Nataraju A.B.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:06 PM To: Kirill Bolshakov Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] no SDP in 200 reply to INVITE Hi Kirill, If offer-answer is completed (183 sdp in ur case) before 200/ok is sent ,then 200/ok should not carry answer sdp. [ABN] I disagree with your comments since in this scenario 183 being sent unreliably.... [ABN] even though the offer answer was completed when 183 reaches the UAC, but since the 183 is not been sent reliably 200 should carry the same SDP which was carried in 183 responses... regards, siddhu > Hello Everyone, > > could someone please clarify the following situation: the INVITE is > first answered with "183 Session Progress" containing an SDP answer, and > the final "200 OK" does not contain any SDP. RFC 3261 reads (sect. > 13.3.1.4): > =================== > If the INVITE request contained an offer, and the UAS had not yet > sent an answer, the 2xx MUST contain an answer. If the INVITE did > not contain an offer, the 2xx MUST contain an offer if the UAS had > not yet sent an offer. > =================== > > So, is 200 OK without SDP valid when SDP answer arrived in "183 Session > Progress"? Or is reliability of provisional responses mandatory in this > case? > > Thanks in advance, > Kirill > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
