Re: actpass redux
Roman Shpount <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAD5OKxsd0saF1bLAORon25wk+MwyoCC6AkP-wSfEmYP7MNzV3Q@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/9/17 9:17 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > >> >> On Jun 8, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Roman Shpount <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Because of this, I think for the best interop, offerer MUST specify >>> actpass for both initial and subsequent offers but answerer MUST be able to >>> handle active and passive setup roles as well. >>> >> >> that works for me >> > > I don't understand what this accomplishes. If you must be able to accept > anything in a received offer, then what is gained by restricting what can > be used in an offer? > This is all because of legacy interop. There are legacy end points that send non-actpass, so end point MUST be able to accept active and passive to interop with such legacy devices. There are also legacy end points that only expect actass so end point MUST only send actpass to interop with such devices. _____________ Roman Shpount _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic