Agreed!
Roman Shpount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/05/2005 04:41 PM To <[email protected]> cc [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Udit Goyal/C/US/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject [Sip-implementors] Re: Sip-implementors Digest, Vol 31, Issue 14 John, You wrote: > RFC 3264 does indeed tell you to do that. In section 5.1 it states: > "If the offerer wishes to communicate, but wishes to neither send nor > receive media at this time, it MUST mark the stream with an "a=inactive" > attribute." > The problem is, this appears to be contradicted elsewhere. The problem is in RFC 3264 section 8.4. It states: "If the stream to be placed on hold was previously a sendrecv media stream, it is placed on hold by marking it as sendonly." This sentence is more often false then true and should not be considered normative. I think the original intent of this text was to say that that SDP with c=0.0.0.0 corresponds to sendonly SDP and not inactive SDP. Since SDP with c=0.0.0.0 used to be called hold SDP, sending an offer with such SDP was normally called putting on hold. Hence the confusion. In generall, it would be a good idea to remove mentioning of term hold from RFC 3264. Also, correspondence between SDP with c=0.0.0.0 and sendonly SDP should be spelled out. This should not change anything in the meaning of the RFC, but hopefully will end the hold confusion. ___________________________________ Roman Shpount, VP of Technology aTelo, Inc. -- www.atelo.com _______________________________________________ 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
