[Sip] Need opinion

<sulabh.deshmukh@wipro.com> Thu, 30 September 2010 07:10 UTC

Return-Path: <sulabh.deshmukh@wipro.com>
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4683A6DBD for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.675
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.675 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dN+G+yiA8RTv for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wipro-blr-out02.wipro.com (wipro-blr-out01.wipro.com [203.91.198.74]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECED63A6DC5 for <sip@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: cb5bdd58-b7b0fae000005aac-5f-4ca43810c08d
Received: from blr-ec-aa03.wipro.com ( [10.201.18.42]) by wipro-blr-out02.wipro.com (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8A.2E.23212.01834AC4; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:41:12 +0530 (IST)
Received: from blr-ec-bh02.wipro.com ([10.201.50.92]) by blr-ec-aa03.wipro.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:41:11 +0530
Received: from blr-ec-bh04.wipro.com ([10.201.50.98]) by blr-ec-bh02.wipro.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:41:11 +0530
Received: from HYD-MDP-MBX01.wipro.com ([10.150.50.181]) by blr-ec-bh04.wipro.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:41:04 +0530
Received: from HYD-MKD-MBX02.wipro.com ([10.154.50.182]) by HYD-MDP-MBX01.wipro.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:40:23 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB606E.844E839A"
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: A/WV BCZH BnMp By73 B5yp CjeC Cp6O DLig EDcL Ejg5 EnwA FGC9 FpUf F7ZE HW0v HgF+; 1; cwBpAHAAQABpAGUAdABmAC4AbwByAGcA; Sosha1_v1; 7; {81D17835-0BDE-40E2-AC6E-BC29D592BF7F}; cwB1AGwAYQBiAGgALgBkAGUAcwBoAG0AdQBrAGgAQAB3AGkAcAByAG8ALgBjAG8AbQA=; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:16:14 GMT; TgBlAGUAZAAgAG8AcABpAG4AaQBvAG4A
x-cr-puzzleid: {81D17835-0BDE-40E2-AC6E-BC29D592BF7F}
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:40:09 +0530
Message-ID: <D90C1FAC55221D4D9563354E245E3BB103426CB6@HYD-MKD-MBX02.wipro.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Need opinion
thread-index: Actgb14hp48pgNRJRHGnPAswkE6IQQ==
From: <sulabh.deshmukh@wipro.com>
To: <sip@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2010 07:10:23.0273 (UTC) FILETIME=[8CA8C190:01CB606E]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [Sip] Need opinion
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:15:53 -0000

HI All,

 

I am some doubt regarding the RFC4566.

 

According to RFC,

 

Up to one rtpmap attribute can be defined for each media format

specified. Thus, we might have the following:

=======================================

m=audio 49230 RTP/AVP 96 97 98

a=rtpmap:96 L8/8000

a=rtpmap:97 L16/8000

a=rtpmap:98 L16/11025/2

======================================

 

 

But what if the scenario is like the following,

 

"m=audio 12167 RTP/AVP 103 98 99 0 101 8 9 18 97 4 120 114 115 116
117\r\n" & 
"c=IN IP4 " & v_userA.userhost & "\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:103 AMR/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=fmtp:103 mode-set=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7;octet-align=0\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:98 AMR/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=fmtp:98 mode-set=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7;octet-align=0\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:99 AMR/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=fmtp:99 mode-set=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7;octet-align=0\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=fmtp:101 0-15\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:98 AMR/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=fmtp:9 bitrate=48,56,64\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:97 EVRC0/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:4 G723/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=fmtp:4 bitrate=5.3,6.3;annexb=yes\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:120 AMR-WB/16000/1\r\n" & 
"a=fmtp:120 mode-set=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8;octet-align=1\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:114 G726-16/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:115 G726-24/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:116 G726-32/8000/1\r\n" & 
"a=rtpmap:117 G726-40/8000/1\r\n"

 

If you see the red marked attribute this same attribute is getting
repeated in the SDP.

 I just want to confirm, is this  acceptable behavior?

 

Can anyone please share his views regarding this?

 

If this is not the right forum to ask this question can you please
direct me to the concern forum?

 

Thanks & Regards,

Sulabh