Thanks for the response, I have looked more into RFC3264 and also found some examples of when using a=sendonly.
To me, using a=sendonly seems more like a mute functionality. If A talks to B and sends hold with a=sendonly, B will keep sending data to A. It is also possible that A will keep on sending to B if it trusts that B will stop receiving according to RFC3264 (if B sends a=recvonly I guess A will stop sending). I wont then save any bandwidth (or save only half) and what do I gain? As far as I can see the "only" thing that is good about this is that when A then puts B off hold again, A will hear B will hear each other some ms faster. Have I missed something or is this basicly the case? Would it also be correct to send a=inactive to really stop the streams? Or is this not considered as Call Hold (I know that the definition of call hold could vary)? If A has B on hold, and then B wants to put A on hold, is it then correct to send a=inactive? We maybe should do any difference on Call Hold and Mute, or what do you say? Regards, Andreas -----Original Message----- From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: den 25 november 2003 19:01 To: 'Mark A. Stacy'; Andreas Bystr�m; Sip Implemators Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Call hold questions Method 1 is deprecated, and method 2 is preferred. See section 8.4 of RFC3264 Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark A. Stacy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:23 AM > To: Andreas Bystr�m; Sip Implemators > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Call hold questions > > > Hello Andreas, > > At SipIT 13 in Ottawa method #2 was discussed as the > preferred mechanism. > > Regards, > Mark > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andreas Bystr�m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Sip Implemators" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:20 AM > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Call hold questions > > > > I'm a bit confused regarding Call Hold service using SIP. I > have seen two > > differnet approaches to solve this: > > > > 1. Send a re-Invite with "0.0.0.0" as the IP address in the sdp data > > 2. Send a re-Invite with the parameter a=sendonly set in > the sdp data > > > > Is there some draft or RFC about this? Which one is > preferred? I guess it > is > > best to have support for both ways (at least receiveng call > hold) but when > I > > send the call hold I need to know which way to use. > > > > Do you see any pros/cons about the two different solutions? > > > > Regards, > > Andreas > > > > ____________________________________ > > Andreas Bystrom > > Computer Engineer > > > > e-horizon Streaming Technologies > > Stadshusplatsen 2, 4th floor > > Box 172 > > SE 14922 Nynashamn > > > > mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > web : www.e-horizon.se > > phone : +46 8 524 201 80 > > mobile: +46 708 85 23 35 > > ____________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
