On 6/3/15 3:13 AM, isshed wrote:
Hi All,
Below is the scenario..
UAC1--------------------------------------------------------------------UAC2
1)---------------------INVITE (a=sendrecv)------------------------->
2)<---------------------200-OK(a=recvpnly)-------------------------
3)-------------------------------ACK-------------------------------------->
4)<---------------------INVITE (withoutsdp)-------------------------
5)---------------------200-OK(a=sendonly)------------------------->
6)<---------------------------ACK (a=inactive)-----------------------
in step 4 UAC2 send INVITE without SDP and in 200-OK UAC1 is
responding with a=sendonly attribute. Question is if UAC1 is behavior
is correct is not?
if not, please suggest correct bahaviour.
I mostly agree with Brett. But it appears to be that *both* UACs are
behaving poorly. In addition to what Brett said...
Msg 2 indicated that UAC2 wanted to be in recvonly mode. The offer of
sendonly by UAC1 in msg 5 is compatible with an answer of recvonly
again, so I don't understand why it is responding with inactive, unless
it has changed its mind about what it wants.
But I still agree that UAC1 should have offered sendrecv in msg 5.
(Unless it has had a change in its own needs.)
I refer you to section 5.3 of RFC6337, which discusses this particular
thing.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
