Thanks for all the valuable responses. As Steve Langstaff refers to RFC 3264, it seems that I have missed the point that the answerer can describe its additional media other than those in the offer. The only constraint is stated in the previous sentence as "the 'm=' line MUST contain at least one media format the answerer is willing to receive with from amongst those listed in the offer" .
On 3/21/07, Gary Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > However it seems to be possible for a buggy remote party to send an > > SDP answer with G729, PCMU and telephone-event. In this case it turns > > out to be that the offerer should always examine the received SDP > > answer doubtfully. > > > > Why do you say this is an invalid answer? Is it because of the presence > of G729? RFC 3264 says that the answerer may include codecs that > were not present in the original offer. > > So ... what's the problem, exactly? Am I missing something? > > -- > Gary Cote > www.awardsolutions.com > -- M u r at A r t u n, MSc. Software Engineer _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
