RE: [AVT] RFC 3984 offer/answer Question

No,

It is not needed since it does not give more options to B.

If A wants later to limit the level to 1 it can do a re-invite.

Roni Even

From: Cesar Trobianni [mailto:ctrobianni at ecotronics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:17 PM
To: Even, Roni; Yuval.Nissan at audiocodes.com; avt at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [AVT] RFC 3984 offer/answer Question

>The level is the highest level supported so level 3 means that you also support level 1. This is specified in RFC 3984.

>B can offer level 3.

But still a separate profile-level-id ftmp line per level should be acceptable (as worst-case scenario), right?

From: "Even, Roni" <roni.even at polycom.co.il>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:38 AM
To: "Yuval Nissan" <Yuval.Nissan at audiocodes.com>, <avt at ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [AVT] RFC 3984 offer/answer Question

Yuval,

The level is the highest level supported so level 3 means that you also support level 1. This is specified in RFC 3984.

B can offer level 3.

Roni Even

From: Yuval Nissan [mailto:Yuval.Nissan at audiocodes.com]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:35 PM
To: avt at ietf.org
Subject: [AVT] RFC 3984 offer/answer Question

Hi,

I would like to clarify the following scenario:

A and B use the same H.264 profile and packetization mode (this assumption is only for simplicity).

A supports up to level 3.0, and B supports only level 1.0.

A doesn't know the level supported by B, and it wants to start the negotiation as offerer.

My understanding is that A needs to send in the SDP new attribute for each level from 1.0 to 3.0 in order to ensure interoperability. Is this correct?

Regards,

Yuval