The draft says it expired already (bit I think it's a typo). Anyway, I believe the information in the draft is correct at present. (it's a good summary which is still valid because the SDP exchange mechanisms haven't changed for years)
Regards, Attila -----Original Message----- From: Nebojsa Miljanovic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 February 2007 16:16 To: Attila Sipos Cc: Meir Leshem; Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh); [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SDP in 2xx response after reliable 18x Attila, thank you! I was looking for something like that draft. I just wonder if it will expire soon. Thanks, Neb On 2/15/2007 3:19 AM, Attila Sipos wrote: >>>My understanding is that if the SDP in the 200(Invite) has a different >>>version in the "o" line than the previous SDP then the new SDP is a new >>>Offer. The UA receiving this SDP should respond with SDP answer in the >>>ACK message. >> > > No, you can't do this. > > If the INVITE has an offer and the answer is in the 180x, then > and SDP in the 200 is not another offer and you musn't > send another SDP in the ACK. > > This document summarises the various offer/answers that are allowed: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-00.txt > > (this document also references RFC 3262 for PRACK and RFC 3311 for UPDATE) > > Regards, > Attila > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Meir > Leshem > Sent: 15 February 2007 08:28 > To: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh); Nebojsa Miljanovic; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SDP in 2xx response after reliable 18x > > > Hi all, > My understanding is that if the SDP in the 200(Invite) has a different > version in the "o" line than the previous SDP then the new SDP is a new > Offer. The UA receiving this SDP should respond with SDP answer in the > ACK message. > > Regards > --------------------------------------- > Meir Leshem > Veraz Networks > Tel: +972-3-9709107 > Fax: +972-3-9709442 > Mobile: +972-54-9709107 > --------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanjay > Sinha (sanjsinh) > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:37 PM > To: Nebojsa Miljanovic; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SDP in 2xx response after reliable 18x > > > Option 2 does not seem correct. Option 1 is correct and you may also > want to ignore the sdp in 200 OK, just treat it as if there was no sdp > in 200 OK. > > Sanjay > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>Nebojsa Miljanovic >>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:30 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: [Sip-implementors] SDP in 2xx response after reliable 18x >> >>Trying to get a feel on how various developers interpret RFCs >>3261, 3262 and 3264. >> >>If you are acting as an UAC and you have received SDP in >>reliable 18x response (i.e. PRACK was used), and then again >>that same SDP comes in 2xx, what will you do? >> >>1. Verify that 18x and 2xx SDPs are the same and accept it. >> >>2. Tear down the call since you consider SDP in 2xx as an >>invalid Offer. >> >> >>Also, do you know of any UAs that require 2xx to contain SDP >>even after Offer/Answer was done with 183/PRACK. >> >>Thanks. >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
