[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0016313]: Responds sendrecv to recvonly SDP, but RFC 3264 says sendonly and inactive are only possible replies

[Asterisk Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=16313 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                davidw
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   16313
Category:                   Channels/chan_sip/General
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     acknowledged
Asterisk Version:           SVN 
JIRA:                       SWP-447 
Regression:                 No 
Reviewboard Link:            
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A 
SVN Revision (number only!): 230951 
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2009-11-23 11:26 CST
Last Modified:              2009-12-04 09:42 CST
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    Responds sendrecv to recvonly SDP, but RFC 3264 says
sendonly and inactive are only possible replies
Description: 
Whilst looking at possible solutions to
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=16254, I noticed that Asterisk can
never send a sendonly SDP response.  Moreover it treats an inbound recvonly
as an unrecognized case.  The result is that it sends the default sendrecv
response.

RFC 3624 says that the only acceptable responses to recvonly are sendonly
and inactive.  I.E., reading between the lines, the response cannot offer
more capabilities than the request would allow.
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0114747) davidw (reporter) - 2009-12-04 09:42
 https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=16313#c114747 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Related but not duplicate.  See my comment on
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=14385 which goes into more
detail and lists a total of four where this RFC keeps cropping up as a
factor, even if it isn't the primary issue.

It's not duplicate, because the current one is about receiving recvonly,
whereas the other one is about receiving sendonly. 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2009-12-04 09:42 davidw         Note Added: 0114747                          
======================================================================