[SIPForum-discussion] Should session version in "o=" line be same for 180 ringing and 200 ok message?

[Vijay Tiwari]

Hello Sid

If there is no change in 180 ringing and 200 ok SDP then "o=" line should
be same.

Regards
vijay


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:53 AM, sid <sid77sharma77 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> Yes, both 180 riniging and 200 ok carries sdp information. but I did not
> find any change.
>
> Sent from my iPod
>
> On 15-May-2013, at 9:49 PM, Kovács György <gykovacs.datanet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> If the SDP has changed the version number in origin line must be
> incremented, it is normal behavior.
> Are you sending 200 OK with SDP? Is there any difference between the 180
> Ringing SDP and the 200 OK SDP?
> Maybe the problem is with the SDP (probably there were different codec
> settings?), not the origin line itself.
>
>   --
> Kovács György
> On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 13:08 +0530, siddharth sharma wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I have one scenario, where my carrier is complaining that their calls are
> getting disconnected after few milliseconds.
> According to their analysis, they are saying that session version in "o="
> line  is not same as in 180 ringing and 200 Ok message.
> Because of this, they are sending BYE message.
>
> Is this valid reason?
>
> I have checked message, I have not found any difference.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
They can because they think they can.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130517/2ba98f72/attachment-0002.html>