It is better to use UPDATE or re-INVITE. regards, Gang On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Klaus Darilion < klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at> wrote: > > > Gang Liu schrieb: > >> What you said is only will happen when call forked. >> But from SIP message above, call not forked. >> This isn't asymmetric codecs case. >> The UAS created two different SDP answer for one offer. orig line is >> different. >> > > Yes, that is true. But as a dirty workaround, if the GW wants to change SDP > between 183 and 200 it could use a new totag in the 200 ok. > > regards > klaus > > >> regards, >> Gang >> >> On 4/23/09, *Klaus Darilion* <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at <mailto: >> klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>> wrote: >> >> Hi gang! >> >> Gang Liu schrieb: >> >> This provider's SDP answer isn't correct. >> For SDP, it should be only one answer for an offer. >> If offer in invite, answer must be first reliable response, >> which is only 2xx in RFC 3261, extended in other RFCs. >> If answer in provisional response, then need repeated in the 200. >> >> >> I wonder if it would be standard conform if the 200 OK uses a >> different to-tag (as then it would be a different dialog). >> >> regards >> klaus >> >> >> regards, >> Gang >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Alexei Kuznetsov >> <eofster at gmail.com <mailto:eofster at gmail.com> >> <mailto:eofster at gmail.com <mailto:eofster at gmail.com>>> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Michael Bradley Jr >> <mbradley.jr at gmail.com <mailto:mbradley.jr at gmail.com> >> <mailto:mbradley.jr at gmail.com <mailto:mbradley.jr at gmail.com>>> >> wrote: >> >> I've noticed a one-way audio problem with one of the SIP >> providers. It's >> >> definitely a media issue, not a network issue. I make a >> call, >> another >> >> party answers and hears me, but I can't her another >> party. When >> he or >> >> she starts speaking, the output on my side says >> >> >> > >> > can you please name one of those providers? >> >> In my case it is the Russian provider pctel.ru >> <http://pctel.ru> <http://pctel.ru/>. >> >> Alexei >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org <http://blog.pjsip.org/> >> >> pjsip mailing list >> pjsip at lists.pjsip.org <mailto:pjsip at lists.pjsip.org> >> <mailto:pjsip at lists.pjsip.org <mailto:pjsip at lists.pjsip.org>> >> http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org >> >> pjsip mailing list >> pjsip at lists.pjsip.org <mailto:pjsip at lists.pjsip.org> >> http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org >> >> pjsip mailing list >> pjsip at lists.pjsip.org <mailto:pjsip at lists.pjsip.org> >> http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org >> >> pjsip mailing list >> pjsip at lists.pjsip.org >> http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org > > pjsip mailing list > pjsip at lists.pjsip.org > http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.pjsip.org/pipermail/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org/attachments/20090424/16861f3d/attachment.html>
