Note that 183 should be reliable Also 200 OK CAN carry SDP, but it must be identical to the one in the provisional response (version number must be unchanged).
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sawada-sipping-sip-offeranswer-00. txt The above draft describes various offer answer scenarios -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:06 PM To: Kirill Bolshakov Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] no SDP in 200 reply to INVITE Hi Kirill, If offer-answer is completed (183 sdp in ur case) before 200/ok is sent ,then 200/ok should not carry answer sdp. regards, siddhu > Hello Everyone, > > could someone please clarify the following situation: the INVITE is > first answered with "183 Session Progress" containing an SDP answer, and > the final "200 OK" does not contain any SDP. RFC 3261 reads (sect. > 13.3.1.4): > =================== > If the INVITE request contained an offer, and the UAS had not yet > sent an answer, the 2xx MUST contain an answer. If the INVITE did > not contain an offer, the 2xx MUST contain an offer if the UAS had > not yet sent an offer. > =================== > > So, is 200 OK without SDP valid when SDP answer arrived in "183 Session > Progress"? Or is reliability of provisional responses mandatory in this > case? > > Thanks in advance, > Kirill > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
