10 jan 2011 kl. 22.19 skrev Saúl Ibarra Corretgé: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Olle E. Johansson <o...@edvina.net> wrote: >> >> 10 jan 2011 kl. 14.07 skrev Kevin P. Fleming: >> >>> On 01/10/2011 03:59 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote: >>>> The draft changes the SDP offer/answer model so that an answer has to use >>>> the same protocol family (ipv4/ipv6) as the offer, which makes sense. >>>> >>>> >>>> Two things remain unclear to me: >>>> >>>> - If I get an offer for media based on an address family I can not >>>> understand - what's the valid response? >>>> If it's only one media stream with codecs I don't support, I use 488. >>>> But in this case that doesn't seem >>>> like a valid response to me. >>> >>> 488 Not Acceptable Here seems reasonable to me; in that case, the media >>> offer is not acceptable, as your endpoint cannot use the requested >>> transport mechanism. >> But how do I know if there's a problem with the codecs or the transport? >> I think using the same error code for two different errors is confusing - I >> don't know what to fix. >> > > How about the Warning header, defined in rfc3261? It seems to be > appropriate in this case IMHO. > I thought of that - but what would we put there that everyone could support?
/O _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
