Re: actpass redux

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Roman Shpount <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>

Those legacy endpoints are clearly noncomformant, so I'm not sure I care
about breaking them,



> There are also legacy end points that only expect actass so end point MUST
> only send actpass to interop with such devices.
>

These legacy endpoints are conformant, which is why it's important to
accommodate them

-Ekr


> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic