[AVT] Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism
"Osher Hmelnizky" <Osher.Hmelnizky@audiocodes.com> Tue, 06 June 2006 14:04 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FncB1-0002OA-2I; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:04:59 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FmsH0-0005fD-IY for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:04:06 -0400
Received: from mail5.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.21] helo=imss.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FmsGy-0002Ef-0F for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:04:06 -0400
Received: from aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com ([10.1.0.8]) by imss with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:09:01 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:04:24 +0300
Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60229C99E@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism
Thread-Index: AcZ9tDkxjhiynylrQ0OiUVEh7NgZFQKIYEjg
From: Osher Hmelnizky <Osher.Hmelnizky@audiocodes.com>
To: avt mailing list <avt@ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e2b1c21e3dfd00bd40339b153dfe4f6a
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:04:57 -0400
Cc: Shahaf Rozanski <ShahafR@audiocodes.com>, Osher Hmelnizky <Osher.Hmelnizky@audiocodes.com>, roni.even@polycom.co.il, garysull@windows.microsoft.com, cabo@tzi.org, Stephan.Wenger@nokia.com, Oren Kudovitzky <Orenku@audiocodes.com>
Subject: [AVT] Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism
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="===============0175800493=="
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, According to the draft : " A system that declares support of a specific MPI for one of the resolutions SHALL also implicitly support a lower resolution with the same MPI." If the Answering side supports lower resolution is the following example is allowed? For example, if we send an SDP offer: m=video 6002 RTP/AVP 96 a=rtpmap:96 H263-1998/90000 a=fmtp:96 CIF=2 a=sendrecv It means that we want to receive CIF with MPI = 2. If we receive the following answer: m=video 6002 RTP/AVP 96 a=rtpmap:96 H263-1998/90000 a=fmtp:96 QCIF=2 a=sendrecv According to H.263 draft: If we receive an offer with a specific MPI for one of the resolutions, it means that the remote UA also supports a lower resolution with the same MPI. Can we negotiate although the parties support different resolutions? Are these scenarios valid? What about CUSTOM? How should we negotiate if the parties don't support the same resolution? Kind regards Osher
_______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] RE: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc24… Osher Hmelnizky
- [AVT] Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-b… Osher Hmelnizky