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

[Rohan Mahy]

On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:06, Chris Sibley wrote:
>>> 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?

- be able to receive 0.0.0.0
- always send a=inactive/sendrecv/recvonly/sendrecv.

make sense?

thx,
-r