Subject: RE: [Sip] Re: SDP hold

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:43:36 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 6:22 PM
> To: David R. Oran; Jonathan Rosenberg; Colin Perkins; Gonzalo 
> Camarillo
> Cc: [email-masked]; mmusic
> Subject: RE: [Sip] Re: SDP hold 
> 
> 
> Yep. In fact, if you consider things like NAT traversal, you probably
> want to also send a modicum of RTP packets for sessions that are on
> hold. Maybe some comfort noise, at a low bit rate. Otherwise, you are
> going to loose your mappings, and the "going off hold" will be tricky.

In this case, you probably don't even want to implement "on hold" using the
a=sendonly attribute. Rather, you would re-INVITE to switch to a comfort
noise codec, or something like that. Remember, we are not standardizing on
hold, we are standardizing a primitive that might be used to implement on
hold.

-Jonathan R.

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip