� Nicolas Dramais wrote: > Hello Eileen, > � > > Eileen Wei wrote: > >> 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. >> > I agree with you. There exists a conflict there. The corresponding > stream in the answer should be marked as recvonly. > >> >> 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. >> > However, here, I don't agree. > See F6: first SDP issued by B : > > o=UserB 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.there.com > > > See F10: second SDP issued by B : > > o=UserB 2890844528 2890844528 IN IP4 client.there.com > > The version number is incremented by one. Thus, according to me, it is > correct.
[Eileen:] But here the session id is incremented by one too, so it is still not the case as described in the "offer-answer" that "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". _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
