Re: [AVTCORE] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-12: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roni,
This is much better, thank you!

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, at 09:30 AM, Roni Even wrote:
> Hi Alexey ,
> Just answering with the open issue from section 7
> 
> 
> Reading these two paragraphs I can see the cases for not removing,  I
> think that the logic is not complete and suggest the following
>  
> If an extension is marked as "sendonly" and the answerer desires to
>    receive it, the extension MUST be marked as "recvonly" in the SDP
>    answer.  An answerer that has no desire to receive the extension or
>    does not understand the extension SHOULD remove it from the SDP
>    answer.   An answerer MAY want to respond that he supports the
>    extension and may use it in the future will mark the extension as
>    "inactive"
> 
> To clarify: If the answerer is able to send this extension if and when
> the current offerer change his directionality
> 
>   
>  If an extension is marked as "recvonly" and the answerer desires to
>    send it, the extension MUST be marked as "sendonly" in the SDP
>    answer.  An answerer that has no desire to, or is unable to, send the
>    extension SHOULD remove it from the SDP answer. An answerer may want
>    to respond that he support this extension and may send in the future
>    or will be able to receive by marking the extension as "inactive"
> 
> Roni