Eileen Wei wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">I agree with you. There exists a conflict there. The corresponding stream in the answer should be marked as recvonly.Hi,
I found some noncompliance between
draft-rosenberg-mmusic-sdp-offer-answer-00.txt (refered to as
"offer-answer") and draft-ietf-sip-service-examples-03.txt (refered to
as "examples"), can someone help to explain?
1. In "offer-answer" section 3.1, it is stated that "If a stream is
offered as sendonly, the corresponding stream MUST be marked as recvonly
in the answer."
An example of noncompliance can be found in "examples" section 2.1, F10
& F12.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">However, here, I don't agree.
2. In "offer-answer" section 4, it is stated that "When issuing an offer
that modifies the session, the o line of the new SDP MUST be identical
to that in the previous SDP, except that the version in the origin field
MUST increment from the previous SDP."
An example of noncompliance can be found in "examples" section 2.1, F6 &
F10.
See F6: first SDP issued by B :
o=UserB 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.there.comSee F10: second SDP issued by B :
o=UserB 2890844528 2890844528 IN IP4 client.there.comThe version number is incremented by one. Thus, according to me, it is correct.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Regards,
Thanks,
Eileen
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
--
Nicolas DRAMAIS
Indigo Software
http://www.indigosw.com
