[AVT] RE: Offer/Answer comment on draft-ietf-avt-mime-h224-04.txt

["Even, Roni" <[e-mail]>]

Magnus,
I see your point. Maybe the following text is better.

"If it receives an offer with sendrecv and its camera can be remotely
controlled it answers with a sendrecv option.  If its camera cannot be
remotely controlled it can answer with a sendonly attribute. The
answerer may also reject the offer if he does not support FECC or does
not intend to use FECC at the moment."

Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:13 AM
To: IETF AVT WG; Even, Roni
Subject: Offer/Answer comment on draft-ietf-avt-mime-h224-04.txt

Hi Roni and AVT,

I reviewed H224 and found one thing that needs discussion. In section
5.1:

    If it receives an offer with sendrecv and its camera can be remotely
    controlled it answers with a sendrecv option.  If its camera cannot
    be remotely controlled it rejects the offer but may later try to
    remotely control the offerer's camera using this procedure.

Is really the second sentence describing the most appropriate response. 
If the answerer doesn't have a remote controlled capable camera but 
would like to be able to control the others camera, then shouldn't he 
respond with an sendonly stream to indicate this?

That way the offerer can separate the case where the answerer may use 
H224 to control the offerer's camera and the case where it rejects it 
completely and the offerer can remove its H224 listener.

What do you say about this?

When we have resolved this I think we can have a WGLC.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone [phone]
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   [phone]
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt