On 2/22/12 4:30 PM, Brett Tate wrote:
>> I do not know the reasoning behind this requirement.
>> Many would find it convenient if it wasn't there. But
>> the gist of the discussion was that relaxing this
>> requirement after its been along is more trouble than
>> its worth. Its really not that hard to come up with
>> some sort of offer.
>
> It is easy to build an offer; it is the potential side effects that may not
> be desirable. Hopefully any device sending an offer-less INVITE and
> requiring 100rel also supports UPDATE, forking proxies, and won't cancel the
> INVITE if it doesn't like the required offer.
>
> For instance if a proxy does not support media and wants to return a 181 (or
> another 1xx potentially known or unknown by UAC), hopefully the UAC won't
> cancel the INVITE if receives an offer with IP6 .invalid connection address
> and foo media.
>
If I was in the position of needing to construct a temporary offer, with
no ability to handle media myself, and no knowledge of what the caller
might be looking for or what is likely to be offered later, I would be
inclined to offer audio with G.711 and a black holed IPv4 media address.
Or maybe I would offer both audio and video and a whole bunch of codecs,
still with black holed IPv4 address. But if possible it would be better
to tailor the offer to the sorts of capabilities that will be offered later.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
