On 12/6/11 7:00 PM, Stefan Sayer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am wondering what to do with an SDP in a 200 to an UPDATE without
> SDP in an established dialog, for example as a response to a session
> refresh triggered by SST. There is two cases:
> - the SDP has not changed (to what is established)
> - the SDP has changed
>
> I can't find any text neither in RFC 3311 nor in 3264 which would
> explicitely prohibit placing an SDP in such a 200 reply. In RFC 6337
> Table 1, though, the only pattern of offer/answer involving UPDATE is
> the one with offer in the UPDATE, and answer in the 2xx.
There was a lot of careful parsing of the various RFCs and inference to
arrive at that table.
> Or is such an SDP considered a "Session Description That Is Not an
> Offer or an Answer" (2.4 in 6337) and thus should just be considered
> informational? What if the SDP is different to the established session?
Yes, I would consider it a session desc that is not an offer or answer.
You could ignore it, or you could fail the call. Odds are that things
will not go well in this case, because the UA that sent this probably
had *something* in mind about what it is expecting to result. You might
get lucky if ignoring it is what was expected. Or you might not.
I would argue that the implementation sending this is in error, and
should be changed.
Thanks,
Paul
> Thanks for any hints!
> Stefan
> _______________________________________________
> 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
