On 03/10/2011 05:06 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: > Hi Kevin! > >> I believe you are correct, the host address should not be changed in the >> 'o' line... it's not really used for anything except identifying the >> session anyway, there's no value in changing it. >> > > I suspected that. :-) > >> If the PBX in question is the one I think it is, this behavior does not >> surprise me :-) >> > > :-) Now I wonder if we should 'relax' this test in the client side, > for the sake of interoperability.
I would; I can't see a lot of value in rejecting an SDP offer because of a change like this. In Asterisk we've got a configuration option to not require SDP version number changes on received offers because there are at least two implementations out there that don't bother to increase the version number even though the offer has changed... but we can go ahead and accept it anyway, since it's possible for the session to work as the user expects in spite of the protocol violation. -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies Jabber: [email protected] | SIP: [email protected] | Skype: kpfleming 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
