> IMO. Section 10.2 of 3264 seems to support > that kind of mechanism of placing the SDP > inactive and requiring the other party to > reINVITE to activate the media
I disagree. The section indicates that the device that triggered the hold subsequently initiated the action to pull off hold. > The 10.2 signalling example seems to be > written for initial call setup signalling > where one end point who cannot readily > change SDP uses that mechanism to delay > activating media (DSP) until it knows > for sure what will be used. I agree; however the concept is not limited to call setup. > So to me section 10.2 doesn't apply, as it is > not call setup signalling and the A party reINVITE > is not attempting to change the currently used > codec or active status. Otherwise everytime you > sent a reINVITE to the B party the B party would > deactivate the media and that seems broken. I agree with the last sentence; however I don't agree with its prior sentence as being the justification. Thanks for the reply. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
