[SIPForum-techwg] Draft Version 5 - remaining discussion points

[Chris Sibley]

Hi Rohan,

Please see below. 

Thanks!

--Chris
 
> 

**********************************************************************
This email may contain confidential information. If you are not
the intended recipient, please advise by return email and delete
immediately without reading or forwarding to others.
 - Cbeyond 
**********************************************************************-----Original Message-----
> From: Rohan Mahy [mailto:rohan at ekabal.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 6:32 PM
> To: Chris Sibley
> Cc: SIP Forum Tech WG
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Draft Version 5 - remaining discussion
> points
> 
> > IP PBX / SP Interop WG team members,
> >
> > Following is a list of final discussion points derived from the
"master
> > list" of 2/27 - 3/2 comments, along with my comments on each.
> >
> > I look forward to hearing your thoughts and getting this wrapped up!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --Chris
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Rohan Mahy wrote:
> > Section 14.1 2nd para
> > Do we want to add that they MUST also send
a:inactive/sendonly/recvonly?
> >
> > [Chris Sibley]
> > I'm not sure I understand why? Paragraph two states that an endpoint
> > should be prepared to receive an SDP offer containing all zeros in
the
> > connection field, which would presumably be coming from an older SIP
> > (i.e. RFC 2543-compliant) endpoint. In that case the endpoint making
the
> > offer wouldn't be capable of adding a directionality indicator to
the
> > SDP, would it?
> 
> The motivation is that it allows endpoints to eventually deprecate
usage
> of 0.0.0.0.  Note that this is just a restatement of the (often
> overlooked) MUSTs in the first paragraph of Section 5.1 of RFC 3264.
> 
> 

Bear with me, I must be missing something. :) 

Paragraph two says that any device that originates and/or terminates RTP
traffic must be prepared to RECEIVE SDP containing all zeros. Are you
saying that we should modify the text to say that the device should be
prepared to receive SDP containing all zeros *AND* a directionality
indicator? If so, what about SDP that contains all zeros but doesn't
have a directionality indicator? 

Or maybe you meant to say that we should modify the first paragraph to
indicate that the directionality indicator must always be used?

> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Rohan Mahy wrote:
> > Nit (15.1 last para): Cut-through might be done on detection of
early
> > media at the RTP port rather than on receipt of SDP in a provisional
> > response, as previously discussed in depth on the SIPPING mailing
list.
> >
> >
> > [Chris Sibley]
> > This sounds like a reasonable thing to do, but is there an RFC or
other
> > "spec" we can legitimately reference?
> 
> Last paragraph of Section 5.1 of RFC 3264:
> Once the offerer has sent the offer, it MUST be prepared to receive
media
> for any [recvonly or sendrecv] stream described by that offer.
> 

Gotcha -- I will update the text for the final draft accordingly.

> thanks,
> -rohan
>