[SIPForum-discussion] 183 response code

mustafa aydin mustafaydin82 at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 4 19:48:05 UTC 2010


Hi Jing,
In addition to Vivek`s comment; the client must send prack with SDP if the 
invite has no offer;

RFC 3262;

If the UAC receives a reliable provisional response with an offer
   (this would occur if the UAC sent an INVITE without an offer, in
   which case the first reliable provisional response will contain the
   offer), it MUST generate an answer in the PRACK.  If the UAC receives
   a reliable provisional response with an answer, it MAY generate an
   additional offer in the PRACK.  If the UAS receives a PRACK with an
   offer, it MUST place the answer in the 2xx to the PRACK.

Regards,
Mustafa Aydin




________________________________
From: Vivek Batra <Vivek.Batra at matrixcomsec.com>
To: Jing Jiang <jjiang at biamp.com>; discussion at sipforum.org
Sent: Sat, December 4, 2010 6:14:32 AM
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] 183 response code


Hi,
 
Yes with PRACK if 100rel is used.
No if 100rel is not used.
Refer RFC 3262 for more details.
 
Best Regards,
Vivek Batra
 
From:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On 
Behalf Of Jing Jiang
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 1:22 AM
To: discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] 183 response code
 
When 183 response message  with SDP is received, should the client ack this 
message?
 
Jing Jiang 
 
 

________________________________

BIAMP SYSTEMS EMAIL NOTICE The information contained in this email and any 
attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other 
intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you 
notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your 
mail system. 


________________________________



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20101204/c86a8e40/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the discussion mailing list