[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MMUSIC] SDPCapNeg : 2nd o/a via UPDATE?
Hi Bob:
That's a new interesting point for me, but I'm not sure I follow it:
How could you avoid second O/A exchang when precondition is needed.
Alice need to signal to you (Bob) the "a=inactive" to "a=sendrecv"
change isn't it? could this really be fixed by media capabilities
extention without second O/A?
pls treat this only as one question instead of a counterexample.
BR
Zhengrong
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Gilman [mailto:bob_gilman at comcast.net]
Sent: den 10 april 2008 22:10
To: Flemming Andreasen
Cc: Zhengrong Yao; mmusic at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] SDPCapNeg : 2nd o/a via UPDATE?
Flemming-
Thanks for reminding me of the problem of old middleboxes.
I was thinking of the 1 of N codec selection problem in section
10.2 of RFC 3264.
-Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Gilman bob_gilman at comcast.net +1 303 898 9780
Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> The second O/A exchange is technically speaking never needed; it's
> done as a courtesy to any potential middle-boxes that may not
> understand the SDP capability negotiations.
>
> -- Flemming
>
> Bob Gilman wrote:
>> I think it's always possible, using media capabilities, to frame an
>> offer such that there is no need for a second O/A exchange.
>> I'd be interested in seeing counterexamples.
>> -Bob
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Bob Gilman bob_gilman at comcast.net +1 303 898 9780
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic