From: "Horvath, Ernst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>* There were implementations that offered an m-line with codecs A, B,
> >>and C, got an answer with C, then got upset when they got RTP with A
> >>(which is quite legal).
I am surprised that this caused any confusion. RFC 3264 seems pretty
clear to me.
Citing from section 6.1:
"The answerer MUST send using a media format in the offer
that is also listed in the answer, and SHOULD send using the most
preferred media format in the offer that is also listed in the
answer."
and from section 7:
"The offerer MAY immediately cease listening for media formats that
were listed in the initial offer, but not present in the answer."
Perhaps the matter hinges on the meaning of "upset" in the original
post. It's perfectly legal (per RFC 3264 cited above) for the
receiver to not render RTP using a codec not in the answer, but since
such packets may be lingering in the network, it must not fail or be
problematic if it receives such RTP.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
