[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: alternate RTP profiles in SDP offer/answer


> I sincerely believe we need the ability to use the same transport
address
> for different RTP profiles.  To do this with grouping, we would have
to
> revise RFC3388 to allow port overloading; let's call that RFC3388bis,
> whose
> only change would be to eliminate RFC3388's prohibition of port
> overloading.

I believe this is the best way to solve this problem. With the proposed
change, RFC3388bis well be well aligned with the latest SDP RFC4566. It
is also possible to state in rfc3388bis that the media sections be
listed in preferred order.

> If we created RFC3388bis, we could mandate that RFC3388bis be used to
> negotiate RTP profiles.  But that still won't get non-RFC3388bis-aware
> endpoints to know what they're supposed to do when they see port-
> overloaded
> media lines.  I suppose we could declare them to be broken.  But
that's a
> lot of endpoints.
> 
> -d