IETF Logo Mail Archive

[AVT] Offer/answer questions on RFC 4585

"Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 01 October 2007 08:12 UTC

Return-path: <avt-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IcGNp-0002ln-1q; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:12:05 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IcGNn-0001kv-2S for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:12:03 -0400
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IcGNj-00032w-AD for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:11:59 -0400
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 112DF200DD for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:11:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b1036bb0000007e1-fd-4700aba2edef
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id EACCB20571 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:11:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.4]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:11:14 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:11:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0242E1C3@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Offer/answer questions on RFC 4585
Thread-Index: Acf6nevN92RI54DBTDShiT2WcHTWpQ==
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: avt@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2007 08:11:14.0470 (UTC) FILETIME=[A29CF460:01C80402]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f
Subject: [AVT] Offer/answer questions on RFC 4585
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0607608417=="
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,
 
I have a couple of questions on RFC 4585, regarding the usage with offer/answer.
 
My FIRST question is: are there any TECHNICAL reasons (I know it's probably not allowed by RFC 3264) why a user receiving an AVPF offer, but doesn't support it, can't reply with AVP answer (instead of rejecting the stream)? My understanding is that if you offer AVPF you still have to be able to do AVP, so...
 
(The receiver of course needs to understand the "AVPF" string in the SDP)
 
 
My SECOND question is on example 3 in chapter 4.4. The RFC shows two m=video lines (one AVPF and one AVP) with the SAME port number (51372), and says that an appropriate grouping mechanism should be used to group the AVPF and AVP alternatives.
 
However, I believe that even if you use some grouping mechanism, you are still not allowed to use the same port number in two m= lines. There has been much discussion about this on the MMUSIC list, but as far as I know that rule hasn't been changed. I assume this would be only an editorial bug?
 
Regards,
 
Christer

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status