The case is that the a basic call is established, A and B are talking. A puts B on hold by sending offer with sendonly first, but B responds with inactive. B did not put A on hold first before receiving sendonly from A. This is kind weird, but rfc3264 says that it is valid.
kaiduan ----- Original Message ---- From: Dale Worley <[email protected]> To: kaiduan xie <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:57:58 PM Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] in-active in answer with sendonly in offer On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 11:42 -0800, kaiduan xie wrote: > Hi, all, > > What is the purpose of putting inactive in answer when receiving a > sendonly offer? Rfc3264 Section 6.1 says, > > "If a stream is offered as sendonly, the corresponding stream MUST be > marked as recvonly or inactive in the answer." > > In rfc5359, recvonly is returned in hold case. "inactive" means the answerer does not desire to receive either. This case will happen if both phones have put the call on hold. Dale __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
