What, do you suppose, is the motive? This is coming from a Squire signaling agent.
Somesh S. Shanbhag wrote: > RFC wont restrict a user from not sending SDP in 487 and even if he does > that it wont be useful. Yes, you can send SDP in 487. > > -Somesh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Balashov [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:37 PM > To: Somesh S. Shanbhag > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SDP payload in 487. > > I understand that it doesn't really serve any purpose. > > Should it be there at all? > > Somesh S. Shanbhag wrote: > >> 487 Request Terminated must be for INVITE transaction. >> and since the transaction was not successful, even if the SDP is > present >> we need to ignore it. >> >> -Somesh >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Alex Balashov >> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:30 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Sip-implementors] SDP payload in 487. >> >> I am getting an SDP payload in a 487 Request Terminated message in >> response to a CANCEL (first a 200 OK, then a 487). >> >> Is this allowed? >> > > -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
