Hi Thomas,
On 2009-02-04 22:24, Thomas Schierl wrote:
> Dear Brian, all,
>
> Brian, thanks a lot for carrying out the review!
>
> Here are our replies:
>
> 1. We do not think that it is required for the offerer to find out, why
> the offer has been rejected. At least we do not know any context where
> the reason for rejecting an offer is indicated.
Maybe I should be more precise about my question. You say that when the
sender receives:
>> (2) with a refusal to the request (e.g., 488
>> Not acceptable here or 606 Not acceptable in SIP).
then
>> In the
>> second case, if the sender of the offer still wishes to establish the
>> session, it SHOULD re-try the request with an offer including only a
>> single media stream.
I don't understand how the sender decides that it is in this case
rather than any other reason for receiving a Not acceptable reponse.
Is it supposed to *guess* that the reason is the use of DDP? I don't
know what IF statement I would need, if I was writing code for the sender.
The problem would not arise if there was a specific "DDP Not acceptable"
response.
>
> 2. "Aforementioned" can be removed in RFC editor processing (AUTH48), or
> IESG note.
Thanks
>
> 3. DDP and RDMA in the RFC4296 sense are about as far away technically
> than it gets from SDP signaling. Confusion is, in our opinion,
> unlikely. Can we ask the MMUSIC chairs and Cullen for guidance here?
Sure. I have no strong feeling about this.
Regards
Brian
>
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
