On 7/14/14 7:06 PM, NK wrote:
Hi Paul,

Thanks!!. Yes i checked 3264 and it says it should be increment by 1.

However i am more concerned that if there is re invite and in 200 OK
SDP(in the correspondence of re-invite) there is no change as compare to
previous SDP then also <session-version> should increment by 1?

In this case you certainly may use the same version.

It is less clear if it is valid to increase the version number when the SDP is not changed. If you MUST NOT increment in this case then you are obligated to keep track whether it is changed or not, and that may not always be convenient.

IMO it is not an error to increment when there has been no change. But others may not agree.

Frankly I think having version number indicate there has been no change is silly. No experienced programmer will trust this to be correct.

        Thanks,
        Paul

Regards,
Nitin Kapoor


On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu
<mailto:pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu>> wrote:

    On 7/14/14 6:14 PM, NK wrote:

        Dear All,

        I have query regarding the Session version in SDP. I know if we
        are making
        any changes in SDP then from 183 to 200OK with SDP then there
        will be
        increment in session version from 183 <session version = 1> to
        200 OK
        <session-version=2>.  However i have 2 doubt as below. Can you
        please help
        me on this.

        1) Is that Value should be increment by 1  only? I mean suppose
        in 183
        w/SDP we have Session Version =1 , then is that mandatory that
        we should
        have "session-version=2" or it can be 3 directly. OR

        2) if in 183 w/SDP and 200 Ok we had the same value but when
        "re-invite
        happened then SDP was same but "session-version" value
        incremented from 1
        ==>3 directly. I feel it should be 2 (i mean increment by 1
        only). Please
        advise if my understanding is correct.


    RFC 3264 requires that it be incremented by 1. But if you are on the
    receiving side I suggest you be lenient about this.

             Thanks,
             Paul

    _________________________________________________
    Sip-implementors mailing list
    sip-implement...@lists.cs.__columbia.edu
    <mailto:Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
    https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/__mailman/listinfo/sip-__implementors
    <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors>



_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to