On second thought, your assumption makes more sense than mine. In my
inference, I was more or less treating 406 as a "global" response
(similar to 6xx) which does not seem to be right.
regds
arjun
--
Arjun Roychowdhury @ Hughes Software Systems
11717 Exploration Lane, Germantown MD 20876
(O): 301-212-7860 (M): 240-475-2139
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/22/2002 02:33 AM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] 406 vs 488 responses
As far as I can tell, a 406 is returned when the UAS on the other side
cannot formulate a response with content-type acceptable to the sender (as
indicated in the Accept-header it sent). A 488 is returned when the UAS
can satisfy the Accept-header but the session description in the request
is not acceptable. There is also a 606 which tells that ALL UASs for that
user don't accept the session description (a 488 only rejects the request
to that particular R-URI).
There might be a bug in bis-09 (Jonathan, we need your comments here).
More comments below.
Regards,
Hisham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Feldman, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 6:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] 406 vs 488 responses
>
>
> When should a 406 (Not Acceptable) be sent verse a 488 (Not Acceptable
> Here)?
>
>
> the UPDATE draft mentions
> an update could be reject a codec change with a 488,
> the bis9 draft mentions
> a Re-INVITE codec change is rejected with a 406 or a 488?
>
> thanks,
> mike feldman
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> bis9 page 18, section 4:
>
> This is accomplished by sending a re-INVITE containing a new media
> description. This
> re-INVITE references the existing dialog so that the other
> party knows that
> it is to
> modify an existing session instead of establishing a new
> session. The other
> party
> sends a 200 (OK) to accept the change. The requestor responds
> to the 200
> (OK) with an
> ACK. If the other party does not accept the change, he sends an error
> response such as
> 406 (Not Acceptable), which also receives an ACK.
This is a bug, it should be 488.
>
> but bis 9 in section 14.2 page 90:
> If the new session description is not acceptable, the UAS can
> reject it by
> returning a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response to the re-invite.
>
>
> draft-ietf-sip-update-02, section 5.2:
>
> If the new session description is not acceptable, the UAS can
> reject it by
> returning a
> 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response for the UPDATE.
This is correct.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
