[SIPForum-discussion] O line of SDP

[mwilliam prusty]

  Hi herve

 Thank u a lot. i got it . 


On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 Herve Jourdain wrote :
>Hi,
>
>
>
>I think that if it's the answer to the INITIAL INVITE, the "session id" and
>"version" fields of the 200 OK will NOT be correlated to the ones of the
>INVITE.
>
>
>
>So I think that if in INVITE you have:
>
>o=root 379 379 IN IP4 <IP1>,
>
>
>
>You will have in 200 OK:
>
>o=foo xxx yyy IN IP4 <IP2>
>
>
>
>As far as I know, xxx can be different from yyy, even if the implementations
>I've seen usually use the same for both (as it's recommended it should be a
>NTP timestamp.).
>
>Also, xxx and yyy would/could be different from 379 in your example.
>
>
>
>Now, for modifications to the SDP in the middle of the dialog, each party
>should send the offer - and response - based on the initial "session id" and
>"version" fields they initially sent, with one additional rule:
>
>If there has been ANY modification to the SDP - and if you send again, it's
>probably the case - the "session id" remains the same, but the "version"
>field must be incremented by 1.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Herve
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org
>[mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of mwilliam prusty
>Sent: jeudi 10 janvier 2008 10:44
>To: discussion at sipforum.org
>Cc: william.prusty at gmail.com
>Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] O line of SDP
>
>
>
>
>Hi
>
>can any body tell me  suppose in the  SDP of the INVITE  contain o=root 379
>379 IN IP4 <IP Address> . The SDP of 200 ok  will conatin
>
>o= root 379 379 IN IP4 <IP address>. Here my attention is to check  whetehr
>in the O line of SDP of 200 ok will conatin 379 379 ,  or 380  380 or  it
>can be anything ??
>
>
>
>william
>
>
>
>
>
><http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/click.cgi/www.rediff.com/signatur
>e-home.htm/1050715198 at Middle5/2027367_2020178/2027187/1?PARTNER=3&OAS_QUERY=
>null> ICICI PRU
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20080110/1c797219/attachment-0002.html>