2007/12/19, Russell Bryant <<a href="mailto:russell@digium.com">russell@digium.com</a>>:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Andreas Brodmann wrote:<br>> 1) modifying the code so that the existance of 'x-nse' in the sdp body<br>> is accepted as if<br>> 'telephone-event' was there<br><br>I think that this option would be fine, provided that we can find some
<br>documentation that verifies that "x-nse" is in fact the same thing. From<br>searching around, it looks like this has been used by Cisco stuff for quite a<br>while, and it just happened to always work before the recent change to not
<br>include rfc2833 in the SDP if it was not offered to us in the initial INVITE.</blockquote><div><br>The X-NSE is a supplement to RFC2833 and uses the same format. So if the X-NSE occurs in<br>an SDP message this means that the other end supports rfc2833 plus the X-NSE.
<br><br>Explanation by cisco: <a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/audio/vnd.cisco.nse">http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/audio/vnd.cisco.nse</a><br><br>I have attached a tiny patch to the bug report at
<br><a href="http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=11489">http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=11489</a><br><br>The patch applies against main/rtp.c and adds a new mimetype having the same<br>rtpPayloadType and type as 'telephone-event' but has 'X-NSE' as subtype.
<br></div><br>-Andreas<br><br></div>