Pl. see inline... >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 5:23 PM >To: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) >Cc: sip List >Subject: Re: [Sip] SIPit21: SDP in a 200OK when using 100rel > >Yes, I did mean 200 INVITE. > >On Nov 19, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) wrote: > >> It is not clear from the call flow if the 200 OK is for PRACK or >> INVITE? >> >> I guess you meant 200 OK for Invite. If that is the case, I >think the >> RFC is clear that the answer sdp is optional in it and if it >does have >> an answer sdp, it MUST be idential to answer in 18x. >> > >Really? Point me to where you find this please.
I was referring to sec. 13.2.1 of RFC 3261. o If the initial offer is in an INVITE, the answer MUST be in a reliable non-failure message from UAS back to UAC which is correlated to that INVITE. For this specification, that is only the final 2xx response to that INVITE. That same exact answer MAY also be placed in any provisional responses sent prior to the answer. The UAC MUST treat the first session description it receives as the answer, and MUST ignore any session descriptions in subsequent responses to the initial INVITE. The strengths of assertion may not be what you are looking for here. Thanks Sanjay > >> But I think the >> offer-answer draft has clarified it further that it should not have >> any answer sdp. This is probably harsh in case of one offer-answer >> exchange, but makes sense if there are multiple early dialog >> offer-answer exchanges in say Prack/200 OK or using UPDATE. >> >> Sanjay >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:14 PM >>> To: sip List >>> Subject: [Sip] SIPit21: SDP in a 200OK when using 100rel >>> >>> There was a lot of discussion and disagreement at SIPit21 about >>> whether the following 200 OK is allowed (or should) have SDP in it: >>> >>> INVITE (offer) >>> --------> >>> 18x (with 100rel) (answer) >>> <-------- >>> PRACK >>> ---------> >>> 200 OK (can this carry SDP?) >>> <--------- >>> ACK >>> ---------> >>> >>> I couldn't find anything definitive in RFC form. Paul's offeranswer >>> draft talks about this I think. >>> >>> If I understand things, the right answer here is that it's not >>> supposed to carry any SDP and that you should ignore it if it shows >>> up. >>> >>> The question is, other than waste, what can go wrong if it is there? >>> When we end up with clear text around the requirement, will it say >>> SDP SHOULD NOT, or MUST NOT appear? >>> >>> Or do I have this wrong? >>> >>> RjS >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip >>> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip >>> > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
