Hi all, RFC4317 "SDP Offer/Answer Examples" provides many useful exapmles of the sdp exchages for the offer-answer model, but there may be an inconsistency on the usage of the session-version incrementation in the second answer.
In the examples in section 2.5, 5.2, and 5.3, in which there are no changes in the second answer, the session-version number of the o-line in the second answer is not changed from the number in the first o-line sent by Alice or Bob who comes to be the sender of the second answer. However, in section 3.2, the version number in the o-line is incremented (from 2890844526 to 2890844527.) Should the sess-version number in the second answer be unchanged in the case of section 3.2, as it is in the cases of section 2.5, 5.2, and 5.3, so far as the content of the second answer is identical to the previous one? As far as the instructions provided by RFC3264, there seems to be no guidelines whether the sess-version in the second answer should be incremented from the previous one in just the case described above. Any assistance or advice you could give on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Hiroshi _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail に直接アクセス！MSN がさらに使いやすく http://jp.msn.com/ _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
