[Sip] SDP telephone-event (DTMF) payload negotiation
"RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR **" <lars.ruoff@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 18 November 2011 08:22 UTC
Return-Path: <lars.ruoff@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7E321F8422 for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:22:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.838
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.811, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 okGx2DU2Cnhd for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:22:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C235621F83EF for <sip@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:22:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id pAI8LXBQ006729 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <sip@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:22:18 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.34]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:22:06 +0100
From: "RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR **" <lars.ruoff@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "sip@ietf.org" <sip@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:22:05 +0100
Thread-Topic: SDP telephone-event (DTMF) payload negotiation
Thread-Index: AcylyygOSgt/xsgJQDKBLTulYTEkZQ==
Message-ID: <23C6087F32FB3A43941E25922F87538E21E92EA810@FRMRSSXCHMBSA2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80
Subject: [Sip] SDP telephone-event (DTMF) payload negotiation
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:22:21 -0000
Hi all, New to this list. Apologies if this question has been asked many times before (my searches showed that it has, but i was still unable to find a definitive answer). The question is about SDP telephone-event (DTMF) payload negotiation. Imagine the following call setup between A and B: INVITE A->B SDP: (among other media formats) a=sendrecv a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 200 OK B->A SDP: (among other media formats) a=sendrecv a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000 The question is: Is the above legal? I.e. is B allowed to choose a different PT than proposed y A. In case yes, what PT should the telephone-events be sent... from A to B? from B to A? Please corroborate your answers by providing normative references if possible. I studied RFC 3264 (SDP Offer/Answer Model) intensively, but could not conclude for a definitive answer in that particular case. Regards, Lars Ruoff
- [Sip] SDP telephone-event (DTMF) payload negotiat… RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR **
- Re: [Sip] SDP telephone-event (DTMF) payload nego… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Sip] SDP telephone-event (DTMF) payload nego… RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR **
- Re: [Sip] SDP telephone-event (DTMF) payload nego… Paul Kyzivat