On 6/3/15 3:13 AM, isshed wrote:
Hi All,
Below is the scenario..
UAC1UAC2
1)-INVITE (a=sendrecv)->
2)<-200-OK(a=recvpnly)-
3)-
Thanks!!
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Brett Tate wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Based upon the shown message flow, the behavior appears to be incorrect.
> More specifically, it looks like UAC1 desired sendrecv within step 1. If
> UAC1 still prefers sendrecv, it should have offered sendrecv within step
> 5.
Hi,
Based upon the shown message flow, the behavior appears to be incorrect.
More specifically, it looks like UAC1 desired sendrecv within step 1. If
UAC1 still prefers sendrecv, it should have offered sendrecv within step
5.
The following are a few RFC snippets.
RFC 3261 section 14.2:
"A UAS
Hi All,
Below is the scenario..
UAC1UAC2
1)-INVITE (a=sendrecv)->
2)<-200-OK(a=recvpnly)-
3)---ACK--