Hi Ravi, I will argue. Please see below. On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Brez Borland <[email protected]> wrote: > > If I would ought to build the UAS, I would make it respond with 606 (Not > > Acceptable), and include Warning header with text description which > > parameter is missing. I would include the first missing parameter in the > > warning text. Further, when the UAC sends the request with some another > > parameter missing, that one would be returned in the warning with the > > response. And repeat, repeat.. until UAC gets all the parameters right. > > > > Warning header is described in rfc3261 Section 20.43. > > > > I'd go for a 4xx type response, since its more clear that the client > is the one who sent a bogus request. 400 or 488 with an appropriate > Warning header would be my choice. > > >From rfc3261: 1) 400 (Bad Request) deals with malformed syntax. (that is, the SIP part, correct me if I'm wrong) 2) 488 (Not Acceptable Here) applies to the resource addressed by the Request-URI and the request may succeed elsewhere. (but with malformed SDP, it should not succeed anywhere else) As I understand it, 606 (Not Acceptable) deals exclusively with session description part. The following is the excerpt from rfc3261 Section 21.6.4: "A 606 (Not Acceptable) response means that the user wishes to communicate, but cannot adequately support the session described." Regards, Brez > Regards, > > -- > /Saúl > http://saghul.net | http://sipdoc.net > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
