Stephen Paterson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is it at all meaningful for an unreliable 1xx response to an INVITE to
> contain an SDP body when the INVITE itself did not? I'm aware of the
> situation in the reliable case.
It is certainly allowed.
> I'm rather hoping that this is not allowed for the sake of making my
> life easier but alas, I suspect it is.
Why would prohibiting it make your life any easier? If you are the UAS
you aren't required to send it. And if you are the UAC you aren't
required to do anything with it.
> I certainly can't think of any
> use for it as there is no means for the UAC to provide an answer before
> it receives the final response.
Well, I guess you could begin transmitting early media in the forward
direction. But I guess that isn't very useful, since before answer there
is probably nobody to hear it.
> I also can't find anything in the RFCs
> that mentions this situation in any way. If I've missed it, please just
> point me to the relevant section of the RFCs. That should be all I need.
I'm not going hunting right now. I don't recall there being anything
*explicitly* said about this case. But I think it is allowed on general
principles.
Paul
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
> Steve Paterson
> Software Engineer
> Aculab
> Tel: +44 (0) 1908 273866
> Fax: +44 (0) 1908 273801
> Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Website: http://www.aculab.com
>
>
>
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1
> 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> P Please consider the environment and don't print this e-mail unless you
> really need to
> _______________________________________________
> 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
