From nitinkapoorr@gmail.com Tue Mar 8 23:23:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7CF3A6857 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:23:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F280F7ynir+K for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:23:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A933A6849 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:23:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so180995wwa.13 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:24:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=twhaP94rM9JQzOdcNKDa6U4uFuAAqCfEQYJlIonROCc=; b=wxM+kX9/i5G7mQ3rs2aaYk+rRL5c1H4/VitJ4iKCSsShP6fsvOlQnF9ugLXaXU9ovd 6FP09udXB637YuE4iYFlAyRAJfL3uNDCZfvuNh5jgngVfDq7VakgPfHBy2P5+WKq7QgV qfga36Or6FkMQGTPtPX8DaF37K5tiZ1NWOFwg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=vCPeI4eFS54GG8xUN166cidCeM+ZD7Ophi21Pbi4RQN26yYfY9515/MwR1h0VltpWM ZqILlkOEoFrL+8BgVIJSWEpbfXO+EA+RL3Medmq2NODKU7esbDRk1++kFyy0jPCXTuGH esR+X97MjBz480mqQRg5Z26jMHHVGYOHM7T34= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.62.137 with SMTP id y9mr2404706wec.107.1299655482538; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.93.147 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:24:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 02:24:42 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nitin Kapoor To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd6668e5dfbcc049e079f6d Cc: sip@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:23:29 -0000 --000e0cd6668e5dfbcc049e079f6d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello All, Could any one please help me out on requested query as below. Thanks, Nitin On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor wrote: > Dear All, > > I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as > well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 > session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the > time SDP is same. > > But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when my > termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP as > below. > > I can see that my Termination is incrementing "*Session Version*" for > SDP in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog.. > > *183 with SDP* > > S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22660* IN IP4 69.90.230.210 > S_NAME : s=sip call > S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 > TIME : t=0 0 > M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98 > > 200 OK with SDP: > > S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22661* IN IP4 69.90.230.210 > S_NAME : s=sip call > S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 > TIME : t=0 0 > > Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session > version and if any supported document is there? > > Thanks, > Nitin > --000e0cd6668e5dfbcc049e079f6d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All,

Could any one please help me out on requested query as be= low.

Thanks,
Nitin

On Tue, Mar = 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor <nitinkapoorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,

= I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as = well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 sessi= on progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the time= SDP is same.

But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version"= . Here when my termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is send= ing the SDP as below.

I can see that=A0 my Termination is incrementi= ng=A0 "Session Version" for SDP in 183 & 200 OK= in same dialog..

183 with SDP
<= br>S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s= =3Dsip call
S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME := t=3D0 0
M_NAME : m=3Daudio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98

200 OK with SDP:

S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
= S_NAME : s=3Dsip call
S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.= 90.230.217
TIME : t=3D0 0

Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the se= ssion version and if any supported document is there?

Thanks,
Nitin

--000e0cd6668e5dfbcc049e079f6d-- From nitinkapoorr@gmail.com Wed Mar 9 01:32:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7643A68DE for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 01:32:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8lS2rS19rZYV for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 01:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BE23A67C3 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 01:32:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so247680wwa.13 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 01:33:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GkIHtws0KHcrNSoz3Ko58nUXDgLjv5zAt8Kf/Zbc/CU=; b=fu5dxGCoErRo0Xau5fbBqyhMIJj4AF+qfPolnEu450icA3nhQ358vcM5wIHU5MQW7w 16FPdZbHBQ2hqP14Ukaak8XUJOF/vBc4QXcFU+0h90KjKwHlq9TTqEX6Eidk6oJTlLWb Y6ynAlr1/klVaMRXgmGNnEkDp7tX13A3IkaJo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=DEc5n8na04nec0BmuKymOasL8Qtufqx3Iz19g6HsR9sGCY3jwq7B+XTwHA0UtZKPkJ IZjPm5WTDNFB8q/kE4jxrI94KZ+llaOU44ZeTNnRFgJ3/NmxEophFsxzkuDQxV+ADzpS O74sV+q5qMGXxcbJ6d1gWn7jAGlmczpDbjKxg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.79.11 with SMTP id h11mr5225050wee.77.1299663207808; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 01:33:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.93.147 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 01:33:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 04:33:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nitin Kapoor To: Ashish Saxena Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0d120d44396049e096bb8 Cc: sip@ietf.org, sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:32:14 -0000 --000e0ce0d120d44396049e096bb8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello Ashish, Here is the mline for both the messages. 183: Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18 200 OK: Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18 Thanks, Nitin Kapoor On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ashish Saxena wrote: > what is the mline of 200OK SDP. > > Regards > Ashish Saxena > (www.aricent.com) > ________________________________________ > From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitin > Kapoor [nitinkapoorr@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:54 PM > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Cc: sip@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK > > Hello All, > > Could any one please help me out on requested query as below. > > Thanks, > Nitin > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor > wrote: > Dear All, > > I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as > well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 > session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the > time SDP is same. > > But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when my > termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP as > below. > > I can see that my Termination is incrementing "Session Version" for SDP > in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog.. > > 183 with SDP > > S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210 > S_NAME : s=sip call > S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 > TIME : t=0 0 > M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98 > > 200 OK with SDP: > > S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210 > S_NAME : s=sip call > S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 > TIME : t=0 0 > > Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session > version and if any supported document is there? > > Thanks, > Nitin > > > "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely > for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain > privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used > for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received > this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are > not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly > prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this > message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from > the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from > virus." > --000e0ce0d120d44396049e096bb8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Ashish,

Here is the mline for both the messages.

183:
Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18
200 OK:

Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/A= VP 18

Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor


On Wed, M= ar 9, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ashish Saxena <ashish2.saxena@aricent.com> wro= te:
what is the mline= of 200OK SDP.

Regards
Ashish Saxena
(www.aricent.com)<= br> ________________________________________
From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Nitin Kapoor [nitinkapoorr@gmail= .com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:54 PM
To: sip-implement= ors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK

Hello All,

Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.

Thanks,
Nitin

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor <nitinkapoorr@gmail.com<mailt= o:nitinkapoorr@gmail.com>&= gt; wrote:
Dear All,

I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as = well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 sessi= on progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the time= SDP is same.

But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". He= re when my termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending = the SDP as below.

I can see that =A0my Termination is incrementing =A0"Session Version&q= uot; for SDP in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..

183 with SDP

S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=3Dsip call
S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=3D0 0
M_NAME : m=3Daudio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98

200 OK with SDP:

S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=3Dsip call
S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=3D0 0

Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session ve= rsion and if any supported document is there?

Thanks,
Nitin


"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is inten= ded solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may co= ntain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated o= r used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have rece= ived this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If yo= u are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly pr= ohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this = message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from = the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from = virus."

--000e0ce0d120d44396049e096bb8-- From nitinkapoorr@gmail.com Wed Mar 9 05:19:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B993A69BC for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 05:19:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E4bnwJ2xqOIS for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 05:19:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BB13A6948 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 05:19:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so386582wwa.13 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 05:20:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FldRHlq3mFwdIpfQwFLW/TKeEREO4a7wj10MyCeX11U=; b=aTAAP2N+g0KpirzTeSyT1N7RyPpPuauKDG8LnAVpYB/m6HHQ46meb9oTQKYWKIiEZh PcnWGBnhAJdZDaWC8jpaPu8Sz41r1cUrdIyGgDZ8QJdilF5xLzUVrJoHyoF4EOhgHcN+ htuMRGhcLrNUBrlhthyevqsgkobDMQEypRSJg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=bxqRmLwVbO2bHe6yHmmPtRMJ153tDLRUP11pZb2CqaK5LlRVYaTtgsF4LEPVREoIba fr8oCJF2bkrafoOzPZ0Fr/tcGhsHnSzdukUuFnl/f2x3EMKgIE7s+43T/9mAQMBAQsZA JFNGv/qSykIsI2HYF1l949MJETouI6/JZXe20= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.221.92 with SMTP id q70mr5337807wep.107.1299676811979; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 05:20:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.93.147 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 05:20:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:20:11 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nitin Kapoor To: "Jaiswal, Sanjiv (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f6cc88b36a65049e0c9694 Cc: sip@ietf.org, sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip] [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 &200 OK X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:19:23 -0000 --001485f6cc88b36a65049e0c9694 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Sanjiv, I do agree that "session-version" should increment by one from the previous SDP when there is any modification is involved in SDP. But i haven't seen any modification into the SDP of 183 & 200 OK/ Also, there was no SDP in ACK. If you need i can share the traces with you. Thanks, Nitin Kapoor On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Jaiswal, Sanjiv (NSN - IN/Bangalore) < sanjiv.jaiswal@nsn.com> wrote: > Hi Nitin, > > > Every SDP with incremented session ( in this case 200 OK) is treated as > new negotiation(offer). > Whether ACK from other end contains SDP answer? If yes then session > version is incremented there also? > > > Regards > Sanjiv > > -----Original Message----- > From: sip-implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu > [mailto:sip-implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of ext > Nitin Kapoor > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 3:03 PM > To: Ashish Saxena > Cc: sip@ietf.org; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in > 183 &200 OK > > Hello Ashish, > > Here is the mline for both the messages. > > 183: > > Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18 > > 200 OK: > > Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18 > > Thanks, > Nitin Kapoor > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ashish Saxena > wrote: > > > what is the mline of 200OK SDP. > > > > Regards > > Ashish Saxena > > (www.aricent.com) > > ________________________________________ > > From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitin > > Kapoor [nitinkapoorr@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:54 PM > > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > > Cc: sip@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK > > > > Hello All, > > > > Could any one please help me out on requested query as below. > > > > Thanks, > > Nitin > > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in > 183 as > > well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 > > session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most > of the > > time SDP is same. > > > > But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here > when my > > termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the > SDP as > > below. > > > > I can see that my Termination is incrementing "Session Version" for > SDP > > in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog.. > > > > 183 with SDP > > > > S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210 > > S_NAME : s=sip call > > S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 > > TIME : t=0 0 > > M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98 > > > > 200 OK with SDP: > > > > S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210 > > S_NAME : s=sip call > > S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 > > TIME : t=0 0 > > > > Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the > session > > version and if any supported document is there? > > > > Thanks, > > Nitin > > > > > > "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended > solely > > for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain > > privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or > used > > for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have > received > > this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If > you are > > not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly > > prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents > of this > > message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising > from > > the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage > from > > virus." > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > --001485f6cc88b36a65049e0c9694 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sanjiv,

I do agree that "session-version" should increm= ent by one from the previous SDP when there is any modification is involved= in SDP. But i haven't seen any modification into the SDP of 183 & = 200 OK/

Also, there was no SDP in ACK. If you need i can share the traces with = you.

Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor

On We= d, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Jaiswal, Sanjiv (NSN - IN/Bangalore) <sanjiv.jaiswal@nsn.c= om> wrote:
Hi Nitin,


Every SDP with incremented session ( in this case 200 OK) is treated as
new negotiation(offer).
Whether ACK from other end contains SDP answer? If yes then session
version is incremented there also?


Regards
Sanjiv

-----Original Message-----
From: sip= -implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:s= ip-implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of ext
Nitin Kapoor
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 3:03 PM
To: Ashish Saxena
Cc: sip@ietf.org; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu=
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in
183 &200 OK

Hello Ashish,

Here is the mline for both the messages.

183:

Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18

200 OK:

Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18

Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor


On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ashish Saxena
<ashish2.saxena@aricent.co= m>wrote:

> what is the mline of 200OK SDP.
>
> Regards
> Ashish Saxena
> (www.aricent.com<= /a>)
> ________________________________________
> From: sip-bounces@ietf.org= [sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Beha= lf Of Nitin
> Kapoor [nitinkapoorr@gmail.c= om]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:54 PM
> To: sip-impl= ementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Cc: sip@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK >
> Hello All,
>
> Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor <nitinkapoorr@gmail.com
> <mailto:nitinkapoorr@gmai= l.com>> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as
> well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183<= br> > session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the
> time SDP is same.
>
> But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version"= ;. Here
when my
> termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP as
> below.
>
> I can see that =A0my Termination is incrementing =A0"Session Vers= ion" for
SDP
> in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..
>
> 183 with SDP
>
> S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
> S_NAME : s=3Dsip call
> S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217
> TIME : t=3D0 0
> M_NAME : m=3Daudio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98
>
> 200 OK with SDP:
>
> S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
> S_NAME : s=3Dsip call
> S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217
> TIME : t=3D0 0
>
> Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the
session
> version and if any supported document is there?
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin
>
>
> "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intend= ed
solely
> for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain<= br> > privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or=
used
> for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have
received
> this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are
> not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly
> prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this
> message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising<= br> from
> the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage<= br> from
> virus."
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo= /sip-implementors

--001485f6cc88b36a65049e0c9694-- From vijay11tiwari@gmail.com Wed Mar 9 09:11:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2067B3A68B1 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:11:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XWZeBGTykJCD for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595643A688F for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so757803fxm.31 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:12:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nmbvmts6I1fPUDsVNrzDHE+D+5d6fEoEwigSBe7hTu0=; b=dyH2GjloxoHGp+sXlE9m83eVkPib0zdx71zaD7d7DCzbxo+OKXVBhXx7WvsC4rFSst BFZvs70bifDqqp+aP1gu5X+EwBpGH9xg9Q5hLhb5it/w3O3JWBnIYEckaC/d2d9pZr63 aVHo5ZWjjdB5t30ekiU78TTBxvZcQBl9RqeyQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=bBI4e/1SBtR1b42dP2dPKZMMH/81N5PVxnePJaODt/TPkRAfX46UkCecf8NPzlY75B m1J/HFa0IW2Xd/KQWlY6lYcrmmPY+3lzg0+9/Dls2XJZhML96Pr0g8ecuyp9Dm+0qYx8 BsNZjUQTfQcrzIAnNmGuNAMtOOdCFMxaXT7+0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.58.80 with SMTP id f16mr3448477fah.148.1299690740152; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.29.195 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:12:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:42:20 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vijay Tiwari To: Nitin Kapoor Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015173fe7ece27bb3049e0fd402 Cc: sip@ietf.org, sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:11:28 -0000 --0015173fe7ece27bb3049e0fd402 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello Nitin Hope you are doing good, sorry i was able to respond that time. i saw are mail and according to my understanding this value can be change if " is increased when a modification is made to the session data." it means that if any session data change between 183 and 200 ok message then it is standard behavior Thanks Vijay On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Nitin Kapoor wrote: > Hello All, > > Could any one please help me out on requested query as below. > > Thanks, > Nitin > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as >> well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 >> session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the >> time SDP is same. >> >> But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when >> my termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP >> as below. >> >> I can see that my Termination is incrementing "*Session Version*" for >> SDP in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog.. >> >> *183 with SDP* >> >> S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22660* IN IP4 69.90.230.210 >> S_NAME : s=sip call >> S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 >> TIME : t=0 0 >> M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98 >> >> 200 OK with SDP: >> >> S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22661* IN IP4 69.90.230.210 >> S_NAME : s=sip call >> S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 >> TIME : t=0 0 >> >> Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session >> version and if any supported document is there? >> >> Thanks, >> Nitin >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. > Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP > implementation. > Use dispatch@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip. > Use sipcore@ietf.org for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP > specifications. > -- They can because they think they can. --0015173fe7ece27bb3049e0fd402 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Nitin

Hope you are doing good, sorry i was able to respond th= at time. i saw are mail and according to my understanding this value can be= change if

"<sess-version> is=A0 increased when a modifi= cation is made to the session data."


it means that if any session data change between 183 and 200 ok mes= sage then it is standard behavior


Thanks
Vijay

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Nitin Kapoor <nitinkapoorr@gmail= .com> wrote:
Hello All,
Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.

Thank= s,
Nitin

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nit= in Kapoor <nitinkapoorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,

= I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as = well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 sessi= on progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the time= SDP is same.

But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version"= . Here when my termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is send= ing the SDP as below.

I can see that=A0 my Termination is incrementi= ng=A0 "Session Version" for SDP in 183 & 200 OK= in same dialog..

183 with SDP
<= br>S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s= =3Dsip call
S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME := t=3D0 0
M_NAME : m=3Daudio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98

200 OK with SDP:

S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
= S_NAME : s=3Dsip call
S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.= 90.230.217
TIME : t=3D0 0

Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the se= ssion version and if any supported document is there?

Thanks,
Nitin


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list =A0https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. Use sip-implementors@cs= .columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation.
Use dispatch@ietf.org for new deve= lopments on the application of sip.
Use sipcore@ietf.org for issues rel= ated to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.
<= br>

--
They can because they think they can.
--0015173fe7ece27bb3049e0fd402-- From attila.sipos@vegastream.com Wed Mar 9 10:12:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C98A3A6928 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:12:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D9GOg85OORDK for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:12:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from cluster-f.mailcontrol.com (cluster-f.mailcontrol.com [85.115.62.190]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5D23A68CF for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:12:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from rly21f.srv.mailcontrol.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rly21f.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id p29ID7vS029176 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 18:13:18 GMT Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rly21f.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) id p29ICKKO021980 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 18:12:20 GMT Received: from exsmtp02.nasstar-t1.net (exsmtp02.nasstar-t1.net [89.28.233.152]) by rly21f-eth0.srv.mailcontrol.com (envelope-sender ) (MIMEDefang) with ESMTP id p29ICGFi021614; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:12:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from EXVS02.nasstar-t1.net ([10.2.10.104]) by exsmtp02.nasstar-t1.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 9 Mar 2011 18:15:24 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 18:12:15 -0000 Message-ID: <680808427CF931459462C3D78CB5EC600BFCEA79@EXVS02.nasstar-t1.net> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Sip-implementors] Content-Disposition Thread-Index: Acveg68aWRI22h/6TWKKNoOKhxJZAgAASUoA From: "Attila Sipos" To: "isshed" , , "sip-implementors" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2011 18:15:24.0729 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5DFC290:01CBDE85] X-Scanned-By: MailControl A_10_80_00 (www.mailcontrol.com) on 10.70.1.131 Subject: Re: [Sip] [Sip-implementors] Content-Disposition X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:12:13 -0000 Strictly, for an error like that, there should be a "404 Bad Request" response but you might decide it is better to treat it as if it is missing: If the Content-Disposition header field is missing, bodies of Content-Type application/sdp imply the disposition "session", while other content types imply "render". In this case, I think I would opt for a 404 response and then inform the UA vendors that their UA is misbehaving. regards Attila -----Original Message----- From: sip-implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of isshed Sent: 09 March 2011 17:55 To: discussion-bounces@sipforum.org; sip-implementors; sip@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Content-Disposition If this header in initial invite and parsing fails. does the call get connected? On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM, isshed wrote: > does anyone know what the behaviour if parsing of Content-Disposition=20 > header fails. > > Thanks, > HArendra > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors From dworley@avaya.com Wed Mar 9 10:29:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148883A693B for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:29:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4crRth8MWTj1 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:29:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DEE3A6989 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:29:34 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEALpVd02HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACmcHSpRQKaH4VlBIUiinqIRw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,291,1297054800"; d="scan'208";a="62653024" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2011 13:30:51 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,291,1297054800"; d="scan'208";a="614077128" Received: from dc-us1hcex1.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX1.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.20]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2011 13:30:51 -0500 Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.187]) by DC-US1HCEX1.global.avaya.com ([2002:870b:3414::870b:3414]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:30:50 -0500 From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" To: Attila Sipos , isshed , "discussion-bounces@sipforum.org" , sip-implementors , "sip@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:28:14 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Sip-implementors] Content-Disposition Thread-Index: Acveg68aWRI22h/6TWKKNoOKhxJZAgAASUoAAAC7KIg= Message-ID: References: , <680808427CF931459462C3D78CB5EC600BFCEA79@EXVS02.nasstar-t1.net> In-Reply-To: <680808427CF931459462C3D78CB5EC600BFCEA79@EXVS02.nasstar-t1.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Sip] [Sip-implementors] Content-Disposition X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:29:36 -0000 ________________________________________ From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Sipos= [attila.sipos@vegastream.com] Strictly, for an error like that, there should be a "404 Bad Request" response but you might decide it is better to treat it as if it is missing: If the Content-Disposition header field is missing, bodies of Content-Type application/sdp imply the disposition "session", while other content types imply "render". In this case, I think I would opt for a 404 response and then inform the UA vendors that their UA is misbehaving. _______________________________________________ I agree with Attila, although beware he typed "404" where he should have ty= ped "400". (404 is "Not Found".) Be careful that your parser will accept all possible future extensions of C= ontent-Disposition as specified in RFC 3261 section 25.1 -- you wouldn't wa= nt your device rejecting calls that implemented some future extension. Dale From sudeeshravindran@gmail.com Wed Mar 9 22:08:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9303A691B for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:08:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x3wdiAS1iFjQ for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:08:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAA23A68F7 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:08:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by ywi6 with SMTP id 6so698718ywi.31 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:09:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FlVKHznoVXgXvWhNYQz8a9cizYE9F1jCVb6zp8ibrgg=; b=ZB8oMRyeoSA2rfA9ETAcYzO3rLG5xze/Ap5t8Uv7qrWaX23PRgxr5LPY4D21MUL6Zw gDABGnFBL17KLh0aZLgpJw+vjUprnSf8FxpSYx714GmEYPbTD0RcIz4MtQzqeiUxMW9Z PEObsCaTBNmQxLGWlK42bT9J1QPWlIEwmXXrY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=AOrdLxFPWEVn+WTyL0w7oMkGpoHiGiPLNKytO1ZYlF0ZSOlgbYZimepfF3C0ve6ZQ1 awVYPKQqsJbjskFODMU9w8n79Ho+alxHpkjYWE7ihhBt7OxLXCScX6u93IEHZaRoxp0D UDwJXBthbhf2xatycULuLVJFuEC+mXaD+aNks= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.117.5 with SMTP id u5mr531393ybm.113.1299737374969; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:09:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.151.47.7 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:09:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:39:34 +0530 Message-ID: From: Sudeesh Ravindran To: Vijay Tiwari Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001e680f09a4895439049e1ab0ae Cc: sip@ietf.org, sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Nitin Kapoor Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 06:08:19 -0000 --001e680f09a4895439049e1ab0ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hey Guys, Please tell me , how can i relieve from this site. All your mails are delivers into my mail id to........ Please suggest the idea. With regards, Ji On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1042 PM, Vijay Tiwari wrote: > Hello Nitin > > Hope you are doing good, sorry i was able to respond that time. i saw are > mail and according to my understanding this value can be change if > > " is increased when a modification is made to the session > data." > > > it means that if any session data change between 183 and 200 ok message > then it is standard behavior > > > Thanks > Vijay > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Nitin Kapoor wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> Could any one please help me out on requested query as below. >> >> Thanks, >> Nitin >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 >>> as well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 >>> session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the >>> time SDP is same. >>> >>> But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when >>> my termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP >>> as below. >>> >>> I can see that my Termination is incrementing "*Session Version*" for >>> SDP in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog.. >>> >>> *183 with SDP* >>> >>> S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22660* IN IP4 69.90.230.210 >>> S_NAME : s=sip call >>> S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 >>> TIME : t=0 0 >>> M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98 >>> >>> 200 OK with SDP: >>> >>> S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22661* IN IP4 69.90.230.210 >>> S_NAME : s=sip call >>> S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217 >>> TIME : t=0 0 >>> >>> Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session >>> version and if any supported document is there? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Nitin >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip >> This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. >> Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a >> SIP implementation. >> Use dispatch@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip. >> Use sipcore@ietf.org for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP >> specifications. >> > > > > -- > They can because they think they can. > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. > Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP > implementation. > Use dispatch@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip. > Use sipcore@ietf.org for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP > specifications. > --001e680f09a4895439049e1ab0ae Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=A0
Hey Guys,
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Please tell me , how can i reliev= e from this site. All your mails are delivers into my mail id to........ Pl= ease suggest the idea.
=A0
=A0
With regards,
=A0
Ji
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0

=A0
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1042 PM, Vijay Tiwari <vijay11tiwari= @gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Nitin

Hope you are= doing good, sorry i was able to respond that time. i saw are mail and acco= rding to my understanding this value can be change if

"<sess-version> is=A0 increased when a modification is made = to the session data."


it means that if any session data cha= nge between 183 and 200 ok message then it is standard behavior

Thanks
Vijay

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Nitin Kapoor <ni= tinkapoorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello All,

Could any one please help me out on req= uested query as below.

Thanks,
Nitin

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor <nitinkapoorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,

I h= ave one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as wel= l as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 session = progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the time SD= P is same.

But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version"= . Here when my termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is send= ing the SDP as below.

I can see that=A0 my Termination is incrementi= ng=A0 "Session Version" for SDP in 183 & 200 OK= in same dialog..

183 with SDP

= S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 = 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=3Dsip call
S_CONNECT= : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=3D0 0
M_NAME : m=3Daudio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98

200 OK= with SDP:

S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=3Dsip callS_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=3D0 0

Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to i= ncrement the session version and if any supported document is there?
Thanks,
Nitin


_______________________________________________
Sip mail= ing list =A0https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is esse= ntially closed and only used for finishing old business.
Use s= ip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP i= mplementation.
Use dispatch@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip.
Use sipcore@ietf.org<= /a> for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.



--
T= hey can because they think they can.


_______________________________________________
Sip maili= ng list =A0https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essen= tially closed and only used for finishing old business.
Use sip-implementors@cs= .columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation.
= Use dispatch@ietf.org for new deve= lopments on the application of sip.
Use sipcore@ietf.org for issues rel= ated to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.
<= br> --001e680f09a4895439049e1ab0ae-- From isshed.sip@gmail.com Thu Mar 10 03:15:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879B43A6924 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:15:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.795 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0a-wk3eY5SQH for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:15:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E55B83A68F0 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:15:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so547919pwi.31 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:16:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=UE/HGuGQXtHgEDzsQUmFVk7NK7rxWNKcUbaHUI8216o=; b=MDfAguVRGkJwZoIGGnRYYttjVxXuZ/orvssrJ4VyIgFVLfy5oY+PLBIoEGd6Q6Sg+d vp8ItPsvGdRFcE7sBVwrpLHaQ+8rlR198vS0TXzWbkpFxHafZKby2Q0pRY6y/tcqz/CA ksPMGmhIMs31PeFjDNNMZCfbt9N4sTTrhjC6M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=dfKy/hOVfeITBxOJ98FUkSdyWxA11BhOn8d/zzrVuZZ+zFWmV93KNFyR76QKdI5Lfh dPy43YPGaTxjyyQtLdrPC6MqwdcXeuqMNC48cVyKxRNibUElvDeNDcVP2A2Bd61yO3eW LycXxiCXciIAlJJKpJ7fX5D1915rAb/aRr4jg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.20.17 with SMTP id x17mr6341734wfi.154.1299755799481; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.41.1 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:16:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:46:39 +0530 Message-ID: From: isshed To: sip@ietf.org, sip-implementors Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502cc88b90c43049e1efa73 Subject: [Sip] Warning header X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:15:22 -0000 --00504502cc88b90c43049e1efa73 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi All, If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as follows. m=audio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n a=fmtp:18 annexb=yes\r\n a=fmtp:101 0-15\r\n a=rtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n a=sendrecv the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 with a warning header as follows. Warning: 306 132.177.120.67:5060 "Attribute not understood" Is 306 is correct response? Thanks, --00504502cc88b90c43049e1efa73 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,=A0
=A0
If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as follow= s.
=A0
m=3Daudio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n
a=3Dfmtp:18 annexb=3Dyes\r\na=3Dfmtp:101 0-15\r\n
a=3Drtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n
a=3Dsendrecv
=A0
the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 with a warning = header as follows.
=A0
Warning: 306 132.177.120.67:5060 "Attribute not understood"
=A0
Is 306 is correct response?
=A0
Thanks,
=A0
=A0
--00504502cc88b90c43049e1efa73-- From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Thu Mar 10 03:22:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1483A6A07 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:22:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.986 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.587, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nqbqzVsfZuzQ for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DA23A69D0 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:22:12 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7bbbae000005311-95-4d78b4b176b5 Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FB.00.21265.1B4B87D4; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.30]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.125]) with mapi; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:29 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: isshed , "sip@ietf.org" , sip-implementors Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:27 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Sip] Warning header Thread-Index: AcvfFKZ3Gv7i1pkQTU6qckBLgAAwPwAAKfzw Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05851948FF292D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: Re: [Sip] Warning header X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:22:14 -0000 Hi, =20 Per section 20.43 of RFC 3261, 306 seems like a good value. =20 "306 Attribute not understood: One or more of the media attributes in the session description are not supported." Note that it is not a SIP response code, but a code supposed to give additi= onal information about the response. =20 Regards, =20 Christer =20 =20 =20 =20 ________________________________ From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of issh= ed Sent: 10. maaliskuuta 2011 13:17 To: sip@ietf.org; sip-implementors Subject: [Sip] Warning header =09 =09 Hi All,=20 =20 If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as follows. =20 m=3Daudio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n a=3Dfmtp:18 annexb=3Dyes\r\n a=3Dfmtp:101 0-15\r\n a=3Drtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n a=3Dsendrecv =20 the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 with a warning head= er as follows. =20 Warning: 306 132.177.120.67:5060 "Attribute not understood" =20 Is 306 is correct response? =20 Thanks, =20 From isshed.sip@gmail.com Thu Mar 10 04:23:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57FA3A696F for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:23:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.888 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.508, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WJPoC-ieoTLm for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:23:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67F63A691D for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:23:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by pve39 with SMTP id 39so475203pve.31 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:24:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tQ9GvjIgYi4is+feUPUtrOz011LEldqaI+YpctdtfGA=; b=KBqQhzrscA2Ly3xDw/2sO2rn/dSEDHnThv9CbVXMKHng2xOtCYdngtcYsm1lpgoMFw aGsEW6uRraJS+YBt1xAY/SUsXgolw+gULzVlgrD/dyEcCKgFw914sUgDWsiP3I5Hzsnt JDm8RHI+A/dTAeLUTxDYBy78aPjZl4bpygWWs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=SiV8iORXCaefhc22RDPh8f3Cgz3fph+qgYmTemDT+snIEVDwj2rmoTR1M3PUsi5n3K ncN8pdo+U3A2WMCZbnrp5WTiCUmxe9JYaECod2zvoCbz/r5+i0mzS1a4ZHeYbZCTNEz2 vdS0M1O8KTfQ01PQaGIk5mqLIi0V6Fz15JW1I= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.201.15 with SMTP id y15mr6361086wff.268.1299759875615; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.41.1 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:24:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05851948FF292D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05851948FF292D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:54:35 +0530 Message-ID: From: isshed To: Christer Holmberg Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd32f00adeee5049e1fede9 Cc: "sip@ietf.org" , sip-implementors Subject: Re: [Sip] Warning header X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:18 -0000 --000e0cd32f00adeee5049e1fede9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks for reply.. what about the addiftional info response 305 or 307? My question is which one is best suited here? Thanks, Harendra On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Christer Holmberg < christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Per section 20.43 of RFC 3261, 306 seems like a good value. > > "306 Attribute not understood: One or more of the media attributes > in the session description are not supported." > > Note that it is not a SIP response code, but a code supposed to give > additional information about the response. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of isshed > Sent: 10. maaliskuuta 2011 13:17 > To: sip@ietf.org; sip-implementors > Subject: [Sip] Warning header > > > Hi All, > > If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as > follows. > > m=audio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n > a=fmtp:18 annexb=yes\r\n > a=fmtp:101 0-15\r\n > a=rtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n > a=sendrecv > > the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 with a > warning header as follows. > > Warning: 306 132.177.120.67:5060 "Attribute not understood" > > Is 306 is correct response? > > Thanks, > > > --000e0cd32f00adeee5049e1fede9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for reply..
=A0
what about the addiftional info response 305 or 307?
=A0
My question is which one is best suited here?
Thanks,
Harendra
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Christer Holmbe= rg <= christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi,

Per section 20.43 of = RFC 3261, 306 seems like a good value.

=A0"306 Attribute not un= derstood: One or more of the media attributes
=A0 =A0 =A0in the session description are not supported."

Note = that it is not a SIP response code, but a code supposed to give additional = information about the response.

Regards,

Christer


=



________________________________

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = isshed
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sent: 10. maaliskuuta 2011 13:17
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0To: sip@ietf.org; sip-implementors
=A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0Subject: [Sip] Warning header


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Hi All,

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If a= n initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as follows.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0m=3Daudio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a=3Df= mtp:18 annexb=3Dyes\r\n
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a=3Dfmtp:101 0-15\r\n
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a=3Drtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= a=3Dsendrecv

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0the terminating endpoint returns an erro= r response 488 with a warning header as follows.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Warn= ing: 306 132.177.= 120.67:5060 "Attribute not understood"

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Is 306 is correct response?

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Thanks= ,



--000e0cd32f00adeee5049e1fede9-- From dworley@avaya.com Thu Mar 10 07:42:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CDF3A69E6 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:42:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.245 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.246, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O8RoI1AFmbcB for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:42:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3D53A69CC for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:42:30 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFMtcU2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACmZXSkeQKZFoVhBIUcinCIQA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,296,1297054800"; d="scan'208";a="236111849" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2011 10:43:47 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,296,1297054800"; d="scan'208";a="614707346" Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.22]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2011 10:43:46 -0500 Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.187]) by DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.22]) with mapi; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:43:46 -0500 From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" To: isshed , "sip@ietf.org" , sip-implementors Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:43:45 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Sip] Warning header Thread-Index: AcvfFKOY9DpFfGWFR9GTbzBfj0nUmQAJGGmj Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Sip] Warning header X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:42:32 -0000 ________________________________________ If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as follows. m=3Daudio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n a=3Dfmtp:18 annexb=3Dyes\r\n a=3Dfmtp:101 0-15\r\n a=3Drtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n a=3Dsendrecv the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 with a warning heade= r as follows. Warning: 306 132.177.120.67:5060 "Attribute not understood" Is 306 is correct response? ________________________________________ The response is 488, which is correct if the recipient cannot find suitable= codecs in the SDP offer. This makes sense, as the SDP contains no audio coded. The warning code 306 indicates that the recipient cannot understand one of = the a=3D lines. Unfortunately, the message does not indicate which a=3D line it does not understand. My u= nderstanding is that if the interpreter of SDP does not understand an a=3D line, it should ignor= e it, which is aligned with the fact that the response contains a warning (as opposed to an error) abou= t not understanding an a=3D line. I also see that the m=3D line mentions codec 101, but there is no a=3Drtpma= p:101 line, which is I think technically an error, but in practice means that the recipient must ignore codec 101. Dale From isshed.sip@gmail.com Thu Mar 10 21:12:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424293A6AA8 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:12:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.439, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mPvK1bgxBJRo for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:12:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599AC3A6892 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:12:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so758846pwi.31 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:13:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=56DIjtOQnuBEJ4SW8aDpE3GNxYpoSfXrLXJb28rYp94=; b=J/xuhvfocvWtAo+BrHTxEmsaFBlz9g/dzn8dl/kAHozGemUUD8MoXyipFSo1DleTKK JOAZilsK3cOHF4DmrU2E0F4VMrTg65mw5vpAP8BJaB+Lv4zWjXP3JeoTx5gljeeAZQT5 VC33jWklUhIqscEgE3iZaSACKRiuAbaq5F9Y0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=UmJZ02KRNf4wDZPwedfQ24kRwtpLBnHlgcUH6ZRxukAqAgm1gnLt9IQBq4qv3rcifE T8/U8H48WwwjS28BrK1e9/QHAmZPF60pfnPRCuDhVQvmO+NBlrPG1V3ToEvo7VTymNxc hn9rGQDyKeTGyOnCr3VNuifxfEfWcsZ4+jh8U= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.60.21 with SMTP id i21mr7084300wfa.439.1299820401965; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:13:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.41.1 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:13:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:43:21 +0530 Message-ID: From: isshed To: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502c11154ba37049e2e05cb Cc: "sip@ietf.org" , sip-implementors Subject: Re: [Sip] Warning header X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:12:04 -0000 --00504502c11154ba37049e2e05cb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thank for your response. As you correctly said the warning code 306 indicates that the recipient cannot understand one of the a= lines. But in this case recipient is understanding the a=rtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000 line. Only thing it is not understanding is the media format(i.e. encoding type). I think 306 is best suited for the case of a new attribute i.e a=useless. If you ask me i would still say that warning code 305 is best suited. Thanks, On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > ________________________________________ > If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as follows. > > m=audio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n > a=fmtp:18 annexb=yes\r\n > a=fmtp:101 0-15\r\n > a=rtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n > a=sendrecv > > the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 with a warning > header as follows. > > Warning: 306 132.177.120.67:5060 "Attribute not understood" > > Is 306 is correct response? > ________________________________________ > > The response is 488, which is correct if the recipient cannot find suitable > codecs in the SDP offer. > This makes sense, as the SDP contains no audio coded. > > The warning code 306 indicates that the recipient cannot understand one of > the a= lines. Unfortunately, > the message does not indicate which a= line it does not understand. My > understanding is that > if the interpreter of SDP does not understand an a= line, it should ignore > it, which is aligned with > the fact that the response contains a warning (as opposed to an error) > about not understanding an a= line. > > I also see that the m= line mentions codec 101, but there is no > a=rtpmap:101 line, which is I think technically > an error, but in practice means that the recipient must ignore codec 101. > > Dale > --00504502c11154ba37049e2e05cb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank for your response.
=A0
As you correctly said the warning code 306 indicates that the recipien= t cannot understand one of the a=3D lines. But in this case recipient is un= derstanding the a=3Drtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000 line. Only thing it i= s not understanding is the media format(i.e. encoding type). I think 306 is= best suited for the case=A0of a new attribute i.e a=3Duseless.
If you ask me i would still say that warning code 305 is best suited.<= /div>
=A0
Thanks,
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Worley, Dale R = (Dale) <dworley@a= vaya.com> wrote:
________________________________= ________
If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the = sdp as follows.

m=3Daudio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n
a=3Dfmtp:18 a= nnexb=3Dyes\r\n
a=3Dfmtp:101 0-15\r\n
a=3Drtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODE= C/8000\r\n
a=3Dsendrecv

the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 = with a warning header as follows.

Warning: 306 132.177.120.67:5060 "Attribut= e not understood"

Is 306 is correct response?
____________________________= ____________

The response is 488, which is correct if the recipient = cannot find suitable codecs in the SDP offer.
This makes sense, as the S= DP contains no audio coded.

The warning code 306 indicates that the recipient cannot understand one= of the a=3D lines. =A0Unfortunately,
the message does not indicate whic= h a=3D line it does not understand. =A0My understanding is that
if the i= nterpreter of SDP does not understand an a=3D line, it should ignore it, wh= ich is aligned with
the fact that the response contains a warning (as opposed to an error) abou= t not understanding an a=3D line.

I also see that the m=3D line ment= ions codec 101, but there is no a=3Drtpmap:101 line, which is I think techn= ically
an error, but in practice means that the recipient must ignore codec 101.
Dale

--00504502c11154ba37049e2e05cb-- From saghul@gmail.com Thu Mar 10 04:33:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E1A3A6A05 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:33:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p+ytwA0ZmVMv for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:33:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26A573A6995 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:33:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by qwh6 with SMTP id 6so1396523qwh.31 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:35:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=17IMsEA4XvFgEIpCTKYY+t+R5BC9RRHA4JffBlrWcmg=; b=fF0gAnCv9CSc7SdRJArSvCNr4AVp2hQA7ADDjhGbY/9WGgWrPnjWJ5Dqm6/BYknbci 1EywOYgVvbCYpu+pltYQLVECCL00fDOsWWG1q//eJNHjzR16lQfJ8G3ZVIYNwkUEgCgz +KyEUQjA7fznPu58LuSOAX3FsuYABl+yiufi4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kgaF+oRknNAhHCqA5bKLRO9Xa7ia/a1evosmEBHYyAMy21ifjMs7TEKc3L8CQ7K8Rq RtO9PY6n2Q2L0C49WutTrIdsLmQTdgAvfbYX99QaFhc+Jge59TNGAXEnWs80NTmH6i2F uVwNFHHAFhfX52JNwPhbp8h1woegNLAOvNBWE= Received: by 10.229.25.211 with SMTP id a19mr5186763qcc.81.1299760500184; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:35:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.251.132 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:34:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Sa=C3=BAl_Ibarra_Corretg=C3=A9?= Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:34:40 +0000 Message-ID: To: isshed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:23:43 -0800 Cc: sip@ietf.org, sip-implementors Subject: Re: [Sip] [Sip-implementors] Warning header X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:33:44 -0000 I'd do 305 in this one, but that's just my 2 cents. On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:16 AM, isshed wrote: > Hi All, > > If an initial INVITE from an endpoint offer contains the sdp as follows. > > m=3Daudio 15190 RTP/AVP 100 101\r\n > a=3Dfmtp:18 annexb=3Dyes\r\n > a=3Dfmtp:101 0-15\r\n > a=3Drtpmap:100 UNACCEPTABLECODEC/8000\r\n > a=3Dsendrecv > > the terminating endpoint returns an error response 488 with a warning hea= der > as follows. > > Warning: 306 132.177.120.67:5060 "Attribute not understood" > > Is 306 is correct response? > > Thanks, > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > --=20 /Sa=C3=BAl http://saghul.net | http://sipdoc.net From sanjiv.jaiswal@nsn.com Wed Mar 9 02:29:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27463A68DE for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 02:29:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S+gisc+zgimc for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 02:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9533A6846 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 02:29:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p29AUTTj028734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:30:29 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p29AUSHB012884; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:30:29 +0100 Received: from SGSIEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.224.87]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:30:28 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 18:30:23 +0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 &200 OK Thread-Index: AcvePSf1VoxZIuPSSzmM0f9sMbLp+QABog+g References: From: "Jaiswal, Sanjiv (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" To: "ext Nitin Kapoor" , "Ashish Saxena" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2011 10:30:28.0536 (UTC) FILETIME=[02728380:01CBDE45] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:24:03 -0800 Cc: sip@ietf.org, sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip] [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 &200 OK X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:31:52 -0000 Hi Nitin, Every SDP with incremented session ( in this case 200 OK) is treated as new negotiation(offer). Whether ACK from other end contains SDP answer? If yes then session version is incremented there also? Regards Sanjiv -----Original Message----- From: sip-implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of ext Nitin Kapoor Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 3:03 PM To: Ashish Saxena Cc: sip@ietf.org; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 &200 OK Hello Ashish, Here is the mline for both the messages. 183: Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18 200 OK: Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18 Thanks, Nitin Kapoor On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ashish Saxena wrote: > what is the mline of 200OK SDP. > > Regards > Ashish Saxena > (www.aricent.com) > ________________________________________ > From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitin > Kapoor [nitinkapoorr@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:54 PM > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Cc: sip@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK > > Hello All, > > Could any one please help me out on requested query as below. > > Thanks, > Nitin > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor > wrote: > Dear All, > > I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as > well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183 > session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the > time SDP is same. > > But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when my > termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP as > below. > > I can see that my Termination is incrementing "Session Version" for SDP > in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog.. > > 183 with SDP > > S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210 > S_NAME : s=3Dsip call > S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217 > TIME : t=3D0 0 > M_NAME : m=3Daudio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98 > > 200 OK with SDP: > > S_OWNER : o=3DTLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210 > S_NAME : s=3Dsip call > S_CONNECT : c=3DIN IP4 69.90.230.217 > TIME : t=3D0 0 > > Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session > version and if any supported document is there? > > Thanks, > Nitin > > > "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely > for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain > privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used > for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received > this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are > not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly > prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this > message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from > the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from > virus." > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors