Hi The below is valid scenario.
Also RFC 3261 section 13.2.1 mentions "The UAC MUST treat the first session description it receives as the answer, and MUST ignore any session descriptions in subsequent responses to the initial INVITE." regards Abhishek Dhammawat Aricent -----Original Message----- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Miguel Oreilly Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:12 PM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: [Sip-implementors] 180 Ringing after 183 Session progress Greetings, I am wondering if the below scenario is valid or not. <-- 183 (with SDP) then, <-- 180 (without SDP) Thanks in advance, Miguel _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error,please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus." _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
