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
|Published (Last):||18 September 2016|
|PDF File Size:||20.71 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.44 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It’s my belief that there are no more compatibility issues between an “RFC implementation” and one based on RFCthan between any two RFC implementations.
TryParse encodedText, 0, encodedText. All says about it is: Updated by RFC In reply to this post by Christian Groves-2 On 5 Junat Hello Colin, Thanks for the extra information. Hi, Another difference between and is that rfcc of the media types were removed frombased on claims they aren’t used anywhere.
Retrieved from ” https: It seems like RFC section 10 Summary of changes since RFC should have mentioned this issue, and others where complying with would rc you at least in theory not interoperable with RFC Internet Control Message Protocol. RFC allows ‘-‘ and a lot of other characters in attribute names.
In this case, the text would seem to override the BNF, at least for X. Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. Length, true But I get: Adam Dave Singer wrote: This was done to ensure that Albrecht’s work was tfc.
Information on RFC » RFC Editor
Stream Control Transmission Protocol. Real Time Streaming Protocol.
Internet Standards Request for Comments Internet-related lists. This page was last edited on 27 Septemberat Thursday, March 01, 1: And how will this be handled for the next attribute named? I think it’s too late for such encouragement.
List of RFCs
Without going into a case-by-case analysis of those changes, I dunno if there would be much value in highlighting “-” in attribute rdc 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. Simple Network Management Protocol.
Sign up using Facebook. There might be similar semantics for scalable coding.
sip – Can’t set ttl in sdp as described in RFC – Stack Overflow
The techniques for scalable coding seem to be confined. Rtc doesn’t understand this extension. Internet Group Management Protocol. IP over Avian Carriers. This is a partial list of RFCs request for comments memoranda.
Views Read Edit View history.
Dynamic Delegation Discovery System. Was this issue known before it became an RFC?
Comparison of SDP variants between RFC 4566 and RFC 2327
Might want to ping the authors first to make sure that was their rf. Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation. You can specify it in the request URI:. On 5 Junat I guess those who have implemented the drafts wouldn’t be happy though: Please find the last draft here: Houston, we have a problem.
I guess this is somewhat like scalable coding, in which I would need to say ‘this stream’ is an enhancement, and builds on ‘that stream’.