Sorry, I'll rephrase what I meant.

The general case is given: c= lines are mandatory in m= lines.
The sub-case of rejected m= line is not mentioned, therefore the general case applies, and therefore the c= line is mandatory.
It is not left for the implementor to decide.

Balint


On 22/10/2014 17:20, Pranav Damele wrote:

If its not mentioned then logic will be left for user to implement

Regards
Pranav

On 22 Oct 2014 21:30, "Balint Menyhart" <balme...@cisco.com <mailto:balme...@cisco.com>> wrote:

    Hi,

    RFC 4566, just where c= lines are defined:

    5.7. Connection Data ("c=")

          c=<nettype> <addrtype> <connection-address>

       The "c=" field contains connection data.

       A session description MUST contain either at least one "c="
    field in
       each media description or a single "c=" field at the session level.
       It MAY contain a single session-level "c=" field and additional
    "c="
       field(s) per media description, in which case the per-media values
       override the session-level settings for the respective media.

    No mention of rejected media descriptions, so it applies to all!

    Balint



    On 22/10/2014 16:37, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:

        Hi all,

        I recently ran into an intro issue with some unknown SIP
        device. My client uses a per-stream SDP connection line, but
        when a stream is disabled (port set to 0) the stream is just
        reduced to the m= line.

        Technically I could put the connection line at the session
        level in some cases, but it could be that I need to have it at
        the stream level. Should I also add it for disabled streams?
        FWIW, doing so made the aforementioned SIP device happy, but I
        couldn’t find any RFC reference which stated it’s always required.

        Any clarification (or recommendation) would be appreciated,
        thanks!

        --
        Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
        AG Projects





        _______________________________________________
        Sip-implementors mailing list
        Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
        <mailto:Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
        https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors


    _______________________________________________
    Sip-implementors mailing list
    Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
    <mailto:Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
    https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors


_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to