415 is often confused with 488. "415 Unsupported Media Type" is what you would use if if didn't understand the SIP message body content.
488 (which is similar to 606) would be a more suitable response: 21.4.26 488 Not Acceptable Here The response has the same meaning as 606 (Not Acceptable), but only applies to the specific resource addressed by the Request-URI and the request may succeed elsewhere. and 606 is described as... The user's agent was contacted successfully but some aspects of the session description such as the requested media, bandwidth, or addressing style were not acceptable. A 606 (Not Acceptable) response means that the user wishes to communicate, but cannot adequately support the session described. The 606 (Not Acceptable) response MAY contain a list of reasons in a Warning header field describing why the session described cannot be supported. Warning reason codes are listed in Section 20.43. Regards, Attila -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Nijhuis Sent: 27 April 2009 14:30 To: Shanbhag, Somesh (NSN - IN/Bangalore); ext friend friend; sip fourm Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query for SDP Negotiation I think Callee should respond with 415 unsupported media type, since it is not supporting media types 102, 0, 8 or 106. Met vriendelijke groet, with kind regards, mit freundlichen Gruß Peter Nijhuis > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Shanbhag, > Somesh (NSN - IN/Bangalore) > Sent: maandag 27 april 2009 15:07 > To: ext friend friend; sip fourm > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query for SDP Negotiation > > The basic thing is CALLEE has to take the subset of codecs offered by > CALLER and reply back. > But in your case, CALLEE is replying with different set of codecs (97 > 101) in reply to CALLER codecs ( 102 0 8 106 ) IMHO, since the > capabilities mis-match, immdiately end the call using BYE / CANCEL > which ever is relevant. > > > Somesh > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of ext friend > friend > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 2:59 PM > To: sip fourm > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Query for SDP Negotiation > > Dear Folks, > I have doubt in the following scenario. > > Caller's sdp : > > v=0 > o=- 1234 1 IN IP4 10.10.20.35 > s=- > c=IN IP4 10.10.20.35 > t=0 0 > m=audio 12000 RTP/AVP 102 0 8 106 > a=rtpmap:102 iLBC/8000 > a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 > a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000 > a=rtpmap:106 telephone-event/8000 > > > Callee's negotiated sdp : > > v=0 > o=- 3449811996 3449811996 IN IP4 10.10.20.4 s=SJphone c=IN IP4 > 10.10.20.4 t=0 0 m=audio 49164 RTP/AVP 97 101 c=IN IP4 10.10.20.4 > a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000 > a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 > a=fmtp:101 0-16 > a=setup:active > a=sendrecv > > In this case,Is callee's negotiation method is wrong? > > Callee should send like m=audio 49164 RTP/AVP 102 106 rite? > > In this case, after call establishment, > from caller sending RTP using 102 (UnKnown) > from callee sending RTP using 97 (iLBC) > > So caller hearing callee's audio but callee not able to hear caller's > audio. > > please clarify this issue. > > Thanks & Regards, > vijay > > > Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite > Yahoo! group at http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
