The Session Description Protocol (SDP) is a format for describing streaming media communications parameters. The IETF published the original specification as an IETF Proposed Standard in April , and subsequently published a revised specification as an IETF Proposed Standard as RFC in July . ” SDP: Session Description Protocol (RFC )”. ITU-T A.5 justification information for referenced document IETF RFC ( ) in draft H. It was not available in the previous SDP defined by RFC 4. Status of approval: Normative. 3. Justification for the specific reference: IETF RFC specifies SDP: Session Description Protocol wich is tested in Q
|Published (Last):||23 May 2016|
|PDF File Size:||19.64 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.46 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Feedback Contact Us Accessibility. Hello Colin, Thanks for the extra information.
Unless separate permission is granted, modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modified works by the authors, any organization or project to which rfx authors belong, or the XMPP Standards Foundation. The approach taken herein is to send pure SDP.
Names are only unique within the associated syntactic construct, i.
XEP A Transport for Initiating and Negotiating Sessions (TINS)
There’s no discussion of the compatibility impact of this. Might want to ping the authors first to make sure that was their intent.
The latest draft can be found at: Recipients of this session description are instructed to only receive media. There might be similar. Limitation of Liability In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort including negligencecontract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts or agreed to in writing, shall the XMPP Standards Foundation or any author of this Specification be liable for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising from, out of, or in connection with the Specification or the implementation, deployment, or other use of the Specification including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losseseven if the XMPP Standards Foundation or such author has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
I can only expect that was the intent, yes. Sure, but there’s still an issue here, or at least something needing clarification: The fields present in their values are considered in the protocol as opaque strings, they are used as identifiers, just like paths in an URL or filenames in a file system: This message SHOULD cause all resources associated with this transaction to be freed, and any associated network connections to be terminated.
Developers desiring similar functionality are advised to implement the protocol that supersedes this one XEP Obsoletes RFCs; Errata exist.
Implementation of the protocol described herein is not recommended. Values are typically a UTF-8 encoding.
All says about it is: Thus an hour meeting from 10am UTC on 1 Augustwith a single repeat time a week later at the same time can be represented as:. SDP does not ietr any media by itself but is used rff endpoints for negotiation of media type, format, and all associated properties. When repeat times are specified, the start time of each repetition may need to be adjusted so that it will occur at the same local time in a specific timezone throughout the period between the start time and the stop time which are still specified in NTP format in an absolute UTC timezone.
Clear description of the referenced document: Other useful information describing the “Quality” of the document: If you are referring to the general case as H. SDP uses attributes to extend the core protocol. Relationship with other existing or emerging documents: Session Description Protocol, April This document has been retracted by the author s. McCanne, “vat – Xbased audio teleconferencing tool” vat manual page, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, It IS used in H.
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:. The degree of stability or maturity of the document: Each message may contain multiple timing and media descriptions.
Comparison of SDP variants between RFC 4566 and RFC 2327
Obsoletes RFCs The degree of stability or maturity of the document: The second one is used to rrc in which language it is written alternate texts in multiple languages may be carried in the protocol, and 237 automatically by the user agent according to user preferences. And why was a name chosen that might break backwards compatibility?
Other for any supplementary information: A sends an acknowledgement to B. Discussion on other xmpp. All RFCs always remain available on-line. It is the responsibility of the XMPP recipient or translating gateway to unescape these restricted characters for processing.
ITU-T work programme
It’s my belief that there are no more compatibility issues between an “RFC implementation” and one based on RFCthan between any two RFC implementations.
Negotiating a Voice Call 6. Relationship with other rcc or emerging documents: Other useful information describing the “Quality” of the document:. RFCwhile not perfect, greatly clarifies the text to fix those problems, and to reflect existing practice.