I think, 400 is more appropriate for any malformed SDP. 488 is more applicable for the case when the SDP is understood and is not supported. Sreeram
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dale Worley Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:00 AM To: Avasarala Ranjit-A20990 Cc: sip fourm Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Response of INVITE with malformed origin line On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 23:03 +0800, Avasarala Ranjit-A20990 wrote: > 400 Bad Request with Reason phrase as "malformed SDP" Generally, the x00 responses should be avoided as much as possible, because they provide almost no information that can be acted upon automatically. > From: Anuradha Gupta > What should be the response for following INVITE message which has > malformed origin line in SDP? This has come up before, but I don't remember the previous answers. It looks to me like 488 Not Acceptable Here is a reasonable response. All the examples in RFC 3261 involve correct SDP that is somehow not usable at the UAS. But you can give 488 with warning code 399 Miscellaneous Response, and include a text phrase describing the malformed SDP. Dale _______________________________________________ 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
