Hi Paul ,
Yes this seems more logical from general implementation .thanks
Regards
Ankur Bansal
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 11/26/13 9:06 PM, ankur bansal wrote:
>
>> Hi Aditya
>>
>> I think this is valid from protocol and offer answer model .But its
>> actually d
On 11/26/13 9:06 PM, ankur bansal wrote:
> Hi Aditya
>
> I think this is valid from protocol and offer answer model .But its
> actually driven by use-case.
>
> *Usecase 1* :Normally during call(sendrecv :media flowing both ways) if
> we put call on hold (no music on hold) with inactive
> then *whil
Hi Aditya
I think this is valid from protocol and offer answer model .But its
actually driven by use-case.
*Usecase 1* :Normally during call(sendrecv :media flowing both ways) if we
put call on hold (no music on hold) with inactive
then *while resuming ,we put sendrecv*.
*Usecase 2* :But for the
On 11/24/13 10:21 PM, Aditya Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
> Is the following valid.
> A keeps B on Hold with SDP -inactive. state on both sides offer-answer is
> inactive.
> Can A send again offer with SDP as (sendonly)--?. is this valid?
> if so can you plesae point me the reference/
See RFC 6337, especia
-implementors] changing the Direction Attributes.
Hi,
Is the following valid.
A keeps B on Hold with SDP -inactive. state on both sides offer-answer is
inactive.
Can A send again offer with SDP as (sendonly)--?. is this valid?
if so can you plesae point me the reference
Hi,
Is the following valid.
A keeps B on Hold with SDP -inactive. state on both sides offer-answer is
inactive.
Can A send again offer with SDP as (sendonly)--?. is this valid?
if so can you plesae point me the reference/
___
Sip-implementors mailing lis
