Subject: [MMUSIC] RFC 4317, RFC 4566: SDP asymmetry and port numbers?

From: Fredrik Bergholtz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:49:07 +0000

Hi, I have three questions about existing RFCs related to SDP.

The first is about RFC 4317 - Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Examples. In sections 2.9 and 2.10 of version 01 of the draft there are examples of using a=sendonly and a=recvonly to define asymmetrical connections, i.e. different coding or bit rates in different directions. In the next version of the draft, these examples are gone.

My question is: Why were they removed?

The second question is about RFC 4566 - SDP itself and might contain the answer to the question above. In section 5.14, where media descriptions are defined, I can read the following paragraph:

      The semantics of multiple "m=" lines using the same transport
      address are undefined.  This implies that, unlike limited past
      practice, there is no implicit grouping defined by such means and
      an explicit grouping framework (for example, [18]) should instead
      be used to express the intended semantics.

Does this also apply when the use of a=sendonly and a=recvonly make the semantics clear?

If the above paragraph does disallow usage like the deleted examples of RFC 4317, how should something like that be signalled so that the intent is well defined and 100% compliant with existing standards?

Best Regards
Fredrik Bergholtz
Swedish Radio