Thanks for reply.. what about the addiftional info response 305 or 307?
My question is which one is best suited here? Thanks, Harendra On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Christer Holmberg < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Per section 20.43 of RFC 3261, 306 seems like a good value. > > "306 Attribute not understood: One or more of the media attributes > in the session description are not supported." > > Note that it is not a SIP response code, but a code supposed to give > additional information about the response. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of isshed > Sent: 10. maaliskuuta 2011 13:17 > To: [email protected]; sip-implementors > Subject: [Sip] Warning header > > > Hi All, > > If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as > follows. > > m=audio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n > a=fmtp:18 annexb=yes\r\n > a=fmtp:101 0-15\r\n > a=rtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n > a=sendrecv > > the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 with a > warning header as follows. > > Warning: 306 132.177.120.67:5060 "Attribute not understood" > > Is 306 is correct response? > > Thanks, > > >
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation. Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip. Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.
