Problem found Re: [asterisk-users] Headaches with Video over SIP

[Peter Howard]

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 01:47 -0800, Steve Langstaff wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com 
> > [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of 
> > Peter Howard
> > Sent: 14 November 2006 20:51
> > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> > Subject: RE: Problem found Re: [asterisk-users] Headaches 
> > with Video over SIP
> 
> > > Codec identifiers >= 96 refer to dynamic payload types.
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks, that's worth knowing.
> > 
> > > They have to be negotiated on each SDP offer/answer exchange.
> > > 
> > > So for the Polycom->Asterisk traffic, Asterisk should parse the SDP 
> > > and say to itself "Hey, the caller wants me to send it H264 marked 
> > > with payload type 109, and/or H263-1998 marked with payload 
> > type 96." 
> > > and adapt it's outgoing payload type marking accordingly.
> > > 
> > 
> > "should parse the SDP".  It's not at 1.4.0-beta3 (or, 
> > seemingly, earlier versions).  Should I submit a bug report for this?
> 
> *If* Asterisk is claiming compliance with RFC 2327, *and* if you read
> the RFC the same way that I do, *and* you are actually seeing what you
> have reported then I guess you *could* submit a bug report, but I'm not
> going to say that you *should* submit a report (is that disclaimered
> enough?). As an aside, it appears that this issue might already be the
> subject of bugs 6568 and 7461.
> 

It looks exactly like bug 6568 (I'd missed the remapping in the OK back
to the first phone).  I think I'll try to reopen it.

-- 
Peter Howard
URSYS
13 Burwood Rd,
Burwood, NSW 2134

Ph: 02 8745 2816    Fax: 02 8745 2828