Re: [Sip-implementors] Send media in video call Vs audio call in SDP Answer/Offer model

2008-12-15 Thread Amith Nambiar
- Original Message - From: Richard Hi all, Suppose caller A wants to initiate a video call with B. He sends an INVITE to B and B accepts the call and then sends back 200 OK with SDP. According to RFC 3264, practically caller B will send the audio and video RTP packet to caller

Re: [Sip-implementors] Send media in video call Vs audio call in SDPAnswer/Offer model

2008-12-15 Thread Raghavendra Kamath
Hi Richard, Why does A require the 200 OK to be able to decode the packets? The 200 OK contains information about what B wishes to receive. A should already have opened its decoders as soon as it send the INVITE outwards. It knows the PayloadTypes that B is going to send it. So it can also detect

Re: [Sip-implementors] Send media in video call Vs audio call in SDP Answer/Offer model

2008-12-15 Thread Paul Kyzivat
you could use ICE, to ensure you have connectivity. Then, by time the ICE checks have completed you will be able to start sending the video and expect the other end to receive it. Paul Richard wrote: > Hi all, > > Suppose caller A wants to initiate a video call with B. He sends an

Re: [Sip-implementors] Send media in video call Vs audio call in SDP Answer/Offer model

2008-12-15 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Richard wrote: > Hi all, > > Suppose caller A wants to initiate a video call with B. He sends an > INVITE to B and B accepts the call and then sends back 200 OK with SDP. > According to RFC 3264, practically caller B will send the audio and > video RTP packet to caller A immediately. Since

[Sip-implementors] Send media in video call Vs audio call in SDP Answer/Offer model

2008-12-15 Thread Richard
Hi all, Suppose caller A wants to initiate a video call with B. He sends an INVITE to B and B accepts the call and then sends back 200 OK with SDP. According to RFC 3264, practically caller B will send the audio and video RTP packet to caller A immediately. Since SIP messages and RTP packe

Re: [Sip-implementors] Number Portability, TEL URI and E.164-based SIP URI

2008-12-15 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
Virtually every network I know of which uses npdi, rn, and cic, use them as uri-user params in a SIP URI. (i.e., your first example) -hadriel > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf

Re: [Sip-implementors] RLS - SUBSCRIBE list URI from R-URI when it contains parameters

2008-12-15 Thread Dale Worley
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 18:06 +0200, Anca Vamanu wrote: > It is not clear from here what part of the R-URI identifies the target > and whether parameters should also be used. You are correct -- none of the RFCs specify rigidly how the request-URI identifies the "resource" in question. Part of the

[Sip-implementors] RLS - SUBSCRIBE list URI from R-URI when it contains parameters

2008-12-15 Thread Anca Vamanu
Hi, I am a developer for a RLS server and I have encountered a problem with the interpretation of target list uri for a Subscription. I consider the list uri to be the u...@domain part from the R-URI of the initial Subscribe, but someone reported an inconsistency when the R-URI also contains a

Re: [Sip-implementors] Number Portability, TEL URI and E.164-based SIP URI

2008-12-15 Thread Victor Pascual Ávila
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Victor Pascual Ávila wrote: > Hi, > RFC 4694 describes some parameters in the TEL URI to carry the > NP-related information. Unfortunately, TEL URIs are not always used in > this context and E.164-based SIP URIs are used instead. Any experience > on using parameter

Re: [Sip-implementors] Use of REGISTER with Contact different than the UA's contact

2008-12-15 Thread Paul Kyzivat
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > El Viernes, 12 de Diciembre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió: >> There are a few uses that I know of: >> >> 1) to forcibly *unregister* a device. For instance, you have a device >> registered from work, and then you go home without turning it off. >> From another

Re: [Sip-implementors] RTP packets are not reaching the endpoints

2008-12-15 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Lunes, 15 de Diciembre de 2008, chandan kumar escribió: > Hi , >   > Iam testing IP phone  which supports video & Audio.Iam facing an issue like > .Iam testing on 2 DSL lines . So End users are on different NAT's. I have > registered both the users to Public SIP servers( freel available servers

[Sip-implementors] Number Portability, TEL URI and E.164-based SIP URI

2008-12-15 Thread Victor Pascual Ávila
Hi, RFC 4694 describes some parameters in the TEL URI to carry the NP-related information. Unfortunately, TEL URIs are not always used in this context and E.164-based SIP URIs are used instead. Any experience on using parameters like rn, rn-context, npdi, cic or cic-context in SIP URIs? Thanks in

[Sip-implementors] RTP packets are not reaching the endpoints

2008-12-15 Thread chandan kumar
Hi ,   Iam testing IP phone  which supports video & Audio.Iam facing an issue like .Iam testing on 2 DSL lines . So End users are on different NAT's. I have registered both the users to Public SIP servers( freel available servers for IP calls , using SIPgate).Registration happens.I made call ,ca

Re: [Sip-implementors] Use of REGISTER with Contact differe nt than the UA's contact

2008-12-15 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Viernes, 12 de Diciembre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió: > There are a few uses that I know of: > > 1) to forcibly *unregister* a device. For instance, you have a device > registered from work, and then you go home without turning it off. > From another suitable device at home you can un