I agree with you but Nokia does not. Basically what they are saying is this: If SDP version number is incremented then this counts as an update/new offer period.
The problem is I can't find an RFC stating "You MUST NOT increment version number if no change is made to the SDP" Even Paul Kyzviat is uncertain regarding this (at leat last year) https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2014-July/029740.html On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Brett Tate <br...@broadsoft.com> wrote: >> The violation is: >> >> "When a reliable provisional response contains a session description, and >> is >> the first to do so, then that session description is the answer to the >> offer >> in the INVITE request. The answer cannot be updated, and a new offer >> cannot >> be sent in a subsequent reliable response for the same INVITE >> transaction." >> >> The only thing left to interpretation IMO is if version increment with no >> SDP change is considered an update. >> >> Thoughts on this? > > The SDP is not an updated answer. The SDP is not a new offer. It is an SDP > that RFC 3261 says must be ignored. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
