Looking at RFC 3261, 400 Bad request is a better response. A Reason/Warning header can be added in the response.
21.4.1 400 Bad Request The request could not be understood due to malformed syntax. The Reason-Phrase SHOULD identify the syntax problem in more detail, for example, "Missing Call-ID header field". Thanks, Neel. ________________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harsha. R [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:59 PM To: Maxim Sobolev Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Proper negative final status code for malformed SDP Hello, i would suggest use of 403 Forbidden. 415 is usually sent if UAS doesn't like media-type received in Content-type header 488 is sent for a syntactically correct, but semantically wrong SDP offer. Say a mid-call codec modification that is not acceptable. Regards Harsha 2008/12/6 Maxim Sobolev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > > I wonder what proper status code UAS should generate for the INVITE that > contains clearly malformed SDP. I see several candidates in 3261: > > - 400 Bad Request > - 415 Unsupported Media Type > - 488 Not Acceptable Here > - 606 Not Acceptable > > What do people think? > > Thanks! > > Regards, > -- > Maksym Sobolyev > Sippy Software, Inc. > Internet Telephony (VoIP) Experts > T/F: +1-646-651-1110 > Web: http://www.sippysoft.com > MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Skype: SippySoft > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > -- Regards Harsha _______________________________________________ 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
