Re: [MMUSIC] General SDP usage question
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 31 October 2013 21:10 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D17621E80CE for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rXAbvwB0kmke for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F343421E80A9 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orochi-2.roach.at (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r9VLAEx4006911 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:10:15 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <5272C731.9010205@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:10:09 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Klatsky, Carl" <Carl_Klatsky@cable.comcast.com>, "'mmusic@ietf.org'" <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <6C15A6B88541034E912E94C2D8BC3E87E8D22464@PACDCEXMB12.cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <6C15A6B88541034E912E94C2D8BC3E87E8D22464@PACDCEXMB12.cable.comcast.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080209040307050202060203"
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] General SDP usage question
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:10:19 -0000
On 10/31/13 16:03, Klatsky, Carl wrote: > > HI MMUSICers, > > I have a general SDP usage question that could not confirm from the RFCs. > > Party A sends an Offer with codecs 9,0 > > Party B does not support codec 9, so Party B Answer is just 0 > > Party A sends ACK to setup the call with codec 0 > > Later, Party A performs a flash hook to place Party B on-hold, and > Party A sends an Offer again with codecs 9,0 > > Party B sends a 488 Not Acceptable Here error > > Question: When Party A performs the flash hook, should it have only > included codec 0 since it has previous knowledge that Party B only > supports codec 0? Or is what Party A sent acceptable within the > definition of this protocol? > > Yeah, party B is at fault here. It should be able to perform the same negotiations on a reinvite as it does on an initial invite. /a
- [MMUSIC] General SDP usage question Klatsky, Carl
- Re: [MMUSIC] General SDP usage question Adam Roach