Subject: [Megaco] Question about RTP payloadtype

From: "Seunghan Choi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:44:18 +0900

Hi, All.

Is there the case that RTPpayload type(Rx CodecType) in localDescriptor and RTPpayload type(Tx CodecType) in remoteDescriptor is different?
If there is that case, Which does the rtppltype mean, Rx CodecType or Tx CodecType, in E.12 Payload Transition?

Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------ 
Seunghan Choi 
VoIP Technology Team, Network Systems CoreTechnology Dept. 
Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute 
161 Kajong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Taejon, Korea 
Tel  + 82 42 860 6343    Fax  + 82 42 860 5213 
Mobile  011 455 9524    Email  [email-masked] 
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:08:32 -0400

That is a very good issue. There is no parameter in the current event
notice to indicate which of the two payloads changed. While many use
symmetric payload types this is certainly not a requirement. I suppose
we should consider adding a parameter of enumeration type with values of
send, recv, sendRecv to include with the notice.

Kevin Boyle is our new Implementors Guide editor (as of the end of the
SG16 meeting today, I am handing over the editorship rather than do that
as well as rapporteur). Kevin can propose a fix for discussion on the list.

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L Anderson          mailto:[email-masked]
Tel:+1 908 766 4463
http://www.gti.net/tla

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:08:32 -0400

--

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:01:28 +1100

G'Day,

The assumption behind E.12 was that the payload was symmetrical. We could add a
note stating this but I believe the additional of an extra parameter is beyond
an IG item. There no way to add an extra parameter to an event and maintain
backward compatibility, it would have to be a new event.

Regards,  Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:01:28 +1100

G'Day,

Regards,  Christian

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:55:04 -0500

Agreed.  We would need to bump the version of the package.  Perhaps we 
should add a note to rtp v1 and add a parameter to rtp v2

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:55:04 -0500