Also, the following from the description of 488:
A message body containing a description of media capabilities MAY be
present in the response, which is formatted according to the Accept
header field in the INVITE (or application/sdp if not present), the
same as a message body in a 200 (OK) response to an OPTIONS request.
could be used to indicate support, say for ipv6 and not ipv4. Then the
offerer could analyze that (if I received such an offer, what would I
answer) and if it comes up with something workable it can then send a
new invite with that as the offer.
Thanks,
Paul
On 1/11/2011 6:58 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 11 jan 2011 kl. 11.20 skrev Saúl Ibarra Corretgé:
>
>>> I thought of that - but what would we put there that everyone could support?
>>>
>>
>> For the codec related 488, a 305 "Incompatible media format" could be
>> used. For IPv4/IPv6 stuff, 300 "Incompatible network protocol" or 301
>> "Incompatible network address formats" could help.
>>
>> If none of them suit the needs, maybe a new draft needs to be written
>> extending the warning codes with some new ones addressing these new
>> needs :-)
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>
> Those cents had very high value to me. I have been blind - that's exactly
> what we need. Perfect!
>
> Thanks, Saghul!
>
> /O
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
