Re: [Bug 20816] "Hold" unspecified

On 4/19/2013 11:30 AM, IƱaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2013/4/19 Randell Jesup <>:
>> 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.

I mean users generally expect "instant" response to taking someone "off 
hold"; the SIP PBX's that use a=sendonly/etc generallly are on the same 
LAN/VLAN as the PBX.  If the user is a few hundred ms away RTT (or even 
less), the hold performance will suck if you use sendonly.  And the only 
real reason for using sendonly is to minimize bandwidth (at the PBX).

Randell Jesup

Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 15:39:20 UTC