To add a detail: Any offer can only get ONE answer from the SAME client.

Remember that a SIP INVITE can fork, so one offer can get one answer in 183 
from one device and a different one in 200 OK from *another* device. That's 
valid.
This is covered in more detail in the RFCs covering the SIP Offer/Answer model 
than in RFC 3261.

/O

10 okt 2012 kl. 04:24 skrev Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>:

> On 10/9/12 7:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> thanks for your response. I added my comments inline.
>> 
>> thanks
>> Sam J
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [email protected] 
>> [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat 
>> [[email protected]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 11:03 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] different SDPs in 18x and 200 OK
>> 
>> On 10/9/12 1:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Hello Guys,
>>> 
>>> Different SDP in 183 and 200_OK is a protocol violation or implementation 
>>> dependent?
>>> 
>>> I am seeing some previous discussions on this topic, but the answers are 
>>> not quite convincing to me. I am unable to find SIP RFCs to see how this 
>>> scenario is handled.
>>> 
>>> 1)SIP-Server sends a SIP INVITE(offer) to SIP-SS7-Gateway
>>> 2)SIP-SS7-Gateway converts a SIP INVITE to IAM and sends IAM out
>>> 3)SIP-SS7-Gateway receives ACM (Lets say the far SS7 end opens up voice 
>>> path upon ACM rather than ANM, may be a kind of announcement server. I 
>>> guess, i can calls this Early-Media)
>>> 4)SIP-SS8-Gateway converts ACM into 183 sends 183(answer) to SIP-Server
>>> 5)SIP-Server sends back PRACK to SIP-SS7-Gateway
>> 
>> So the 183 was a reliable provisional response.
>> 
>>> 6)SIP-SS7-Gateway sends 200 OK (PRACK) to SIP-Server
>>> 7)SIP-SS7-Gateway receives ANM (from SS7 network perspective, the CIC is 
>>> same for this call, so opening voice path after ACM or ANM makes no 
>>> difference)
>>> 8)SIP-SS7-Gateway converts ANM into 200_OK and sends 200_OK(different 
>>> answer) to SIP-Server
>> 
>> There are two things that are legal to send in the 200 INVITE:
>> 
>> - no SDP. This is preferred. The O/A was completed by the reliable 183.
>> 
>> - the *same* SDP that was sent in the reliable provisional.
>>    This is legal because of how 3261 is worded.
>> 
>> It is *not* legal to send *different* SDP in the 200 in this case.
>> BUT 3261 says it is to be ignored, so it may not be detected as a problem.
>> 
>> Sam>> can u point me to the section in 3261 where it says to ignore the sdp?
> 
> 13.2.1 says:
> 
>       o  If the initial offer is in an INVITE, the answer MUST be in a
>          reliable non-failure message from UAS back to UAC which is
>          correlated to that INVITE.  For this specification, that is
>          only the final 2xx response to that INVITE.  That same exact
>          answer MAY also be placed in any provisional responses sent
>          prior to the answer.  The UAC MUST treat the first session
>          description it receives as the answer, and MUST ignore any
>          session descriptions in subsequent responses to the initial
>          INVITE.
> 
> 6337 explains this in more detail and gives references.
> 
>       Thanks,
>       Paul
> 
>> There is nothing written that says or implies that you may send two
>> different answers to the same offer and have them both acted on.
>> 
>> (I'm assuming all the messages above have the same from- and to-tags. If
>> that is not so then it gets more complicated.)
>> 
>> You should take a look at RFC 6337.
>> 
>>         Thanks,
>>         Paul
>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In the step8, SIP-SS8-Gateway sends a different answer in the 200 OK for 
>>> some internal reason (implementation dependent ,may be to intercept only 
>>> the user's voice or etc...)
>>> 
>>> PS: Please do not quote the section 13.2.1 in rfc 3261.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Sam J
>>> ________________________________
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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


_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to