If device A indicates a non-hold offer to B and B answers with a hold, is there any reason for B to think that A should send a re-invite to try pulling B off hold?
My answer is no. However the situation has arisen during interoperability testing and the implementers of device B are trying to quote rfc3264 section 10.2 as justification why A should send a re-invite after B has placed the call on hold (a=inactive). A and B have negotiated to use codec 0. A re-invites B with codecs 0 4 18. B sends 200 response with codecs 0 4 18 and a=inactive. Thus B has placed the call on hold. Is A now supposed to somehow know to re-INVITE B again using a single codec so the call is no longer on hold? My answer is no. If B can only support a single codec at time, B should answer with a single codec instead of a=inactive and all the codecs. If you agree or disagree with me, please post a reply to the list to help us close the debate. Thanks in advance. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
