[SIPForum-discussion] SDP in 180 Ringing & 200 OK

[Ayyanar PK]

 The UAC should consider the SDP answer in 180 Ringing and shall ignore the SDP answer in 200OK. I guess the SDP in 180 and 200OK should be the same. Refer to the RFC that has specification about early media feature.Regards,Ayyanar Original message From:nitin kapoor< nitinkapoorr at gmail.com >Date: 20 May 09 23:31:02Subject:Re: [SIPForumdiscussion] SDP in 180 Ringing & 200 OKTo: hari prasad Hari,Could you please provide us the ethereal traces file.ThanksNitin Kapoor2009/5/20 hari prasadHello All,I have a basic doubt regarding the SDPAnswer, in a Offer/Answer model. Can there be a ANSWER in both 180 and 200 OK?If so, is that mandatory to have the same SDP in both the response? I have the following two Answers in one of my scenario:180 Ringing:v=0o= 3654100372 1235990184 IN IP4 192.168.13.13s=SDP Datac=IN IP4 192.168.13.13t=0 0m=audio 46608 RTP/AVP 18 8 96a=rtpmap:96 telephoneevent/8000a=ptime:20a=sqn:0a=cdsc:1 image udptl t38a=cpar:a=T38FaxVersion:0a=cpar:a=T38MaxBitRate:14400a=
 cpar:a=T38FaxRateManagement:transferredTCFa=cpar:a=T38FaxMaxBuffer:336a=cpar:a=T38FaxMaxDatagram:176a=cpar:a=T38FaxUdpEC:t38UDPRedundancy200 OK:v=0o= 3805400806 1235990190 IN IP4 192.168.13.25s=SDP Datac=IN IP4 192.168.13.25t=0 0m=audio 52138 RTP/AVP 18 8 96a=rtpmap:96 telephoneevent/8000a=ptime:20a=sqn:0a=cdsc:1 image udptl t38a=cpar:a=T38FaxVersion:0a=cpar:a=T38MaxBitRate:14400a=cpar:a=T38FaxRateManagement:transferredTCFa=cpar:a=T38FaxMaxBuffer:336a=cpar:a=T38FaxMaxDatagram:176a=cpar:a=T38FaxUdpEC:t38UDPRedundancyHere the Owner, Connection and Audio Port were all different.Is this RFC complaint?Should the UAC consider only the SDP in 200 OK?Thanks in Advance.Kind Regards,Hari Prasad V This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20090521/c2d8ce72/attachment-0002.html>