On 01/04/13 22:06, Joshua Colp wrote: > Daniel Pocock wrote: >> Thanks for the fast reply. I agree backporting full support for AVPF >> would not be justified for many use cases (including my own). What I >> was more curious about is whether the F can be tolerated (in other >> words, ignored or silently removed), as described here: > > From a code perspective, it could. Still not something I would be > comfortable with putting in Asterisk 1.8. > >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01145.html >> "1) RTCWEB end-point will always signal AVPF or SAVPF. I signalling >> gateway to legacy will change that by removing the F to AVP or SAVP." >> >> and whether such behavior is possible even without setting avpf=yes on a >> per-peer basis? > > This is fine for incoming but what about outgoing to a device? >
Excellent question... I've seen one of my Polycom devices reboot itself each time it receives a raw SDP from WebRTC, so if such a hack is implemented, I'd guess that stripping the F is better than ignoring it. -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
