- From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:30:34 +0200
- To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
2013/4/19 Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>: > 3) optionally renegotiating as sendonly, but for Hold this is generally a > Bad Idea, as it mean un-hold requires renegotiation, which is not expected > by most people Why/where is that not expected? any SIP device expects that and reacts on that. BTW sending "a=sendonly" is useful for a PBX that puts on hold a remote phone and sends "music on hold" during the hold status. A phone instead usually sends "a=inactive" when putting on hold a remote peer. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 15:31:21 UTC