RFC 2327 PDF

The Most Common Message Body. ▫ Be session information describing the media to be exchanged between the parties. ▫ SDP, RFC (initial publication). Simply the doesn’t understand this extension. A lot of SIP/WebRTC/ SDP software don’t have support for this. Instead of using the. M. Handley and V. Jacobson, “SDP: Session Description Protocol,” RFC , IETF Network Working Group, , April

Author: Nikoktilar Malaktilar
Country: Honduras
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 6 December 2018
Pages: 430
PDF File Size: 7.5 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.82 Mb
ISBN: 275-5-72938-919-3
Downloads: 28386
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Arataur

Hello Dan, Are you referring to additional differences between the grammar of attribute names or differences between the RFC and RFC syntax in general?

Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. Transport Layer Security 1. Dan Wing dwing ; [hidden email] ; [hidden email] ; dfc email] Subject: This should be rf via http: Dynamic Delegation Discovery System. This was done to ensure that Albrecht’s work was captured.

It IS used in H. Internet Group Management Protocol. Houston, we have a problem. In reply to this post by Christian Groves-2 On 5 Junat A new MIME subtype ‘rpr’ can be used for repair stream. Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol.


Adam Wright 4. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie PolicyPrivacy Policyand our Terms of Service.

Comparison of SDP variants between RFC 4566 and RFC 2327

Network News Transfer Protocol. Hi, Another difference between and is that some of the media types were removed frombased on claims they aren’t used anywhere.

From looking at the IANA registrations the widespread use of “-” seems to be a relatively recent phenomena. They don’t expect to support until the end ofif it doesn’t slip Without going into a case-by-case analysis of those changes, I dunno if there would be much value in highlighting “-” in attribute names; highlighting it might cause some readers of the errata to assume that was the only change, which could make RFC ‘compliance’ worse if that was thought by some implementor to be the only substantive change to the grammar.

I think that’s greatly misleading, and gives the impression that there are more issues than actually exist. Was this issue known before it became an RFC?


I can only expect that was the intent, yes.

RFC – SDP: Session Description Protocol

Sign up using Email and Password. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. I guess those who have implemented the drafts wouldn’t be happy though: I agree such issues should be documented.

Internet Message Access Protocol.

Regards, Christian Dan Wing wrote: Internet Standards Request for Comments Internet-related 2237. At least one of them is. Would the following text capture your clarification? If I have one frc which carries optional ‘repair’ data for another stream, and I want to send them on two separate multicast groups, or two separate streams to an RTSP client, how would I indicate that ‘this media stream’ is the repair data for ‘that media stream’ in SDP? Joe Original Message From: Length, true But I get: