opensubscriber
   Find in this group all groups
 
Unknown more information…

s : sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu 29 September 2008 • 11:54PM -0400

Re: [Sip-implementors] RFC 2833 Telephone-Event RTP Payload Type
by Paul Kyzivat

REPLY TO AUTHOR
 
REPLY TO GROUP




Each sends using the value specified by the other end, and expects to
receive the value it specified.

Paul

Rockson Li (zhengyli) wrote:
> Yes it represents the UA's intended RTP payload type for SENDING or
> RECEIVING RTP.
> And you are correct you don't have to make use of the same value.
> However, I think it's strongly recommended to use same value.
>
> Please refer to RFC3264 p9
>
>    In the case of RTP, if a particular codec was referenced with a
>    specific payload type number in the offer, that same payload type
>    number SHOULD be used for that codec in the answer.  
>
> FYI
> -Rockson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Dykes [mailto:hebron12@gmai...]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:28 AM
> To: Rockson Li (zhengyli)
> Cc: sip-implementors@list...
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] RFC 2833 Telephone-Event RTP Payload
> Type
>
> My question really is about the actual usage of a numeric payload type
> indicator. The assumption with my question is that both SIP UAs are
> negotiating the same "telephone-event' RTP payload. As I understand each
> SIP UA can specify their own payload type indicator (96-127) which
> represents a specific, static "telephone-event" RFC 2833 RTP payload. In
> other words, they don't have to make use of the same value. So am I
> correct in saying that each SIP UA can indeed make use of a different
> payload type indicator in the dynamic range of 96-127?  
> And if so does this value represent the UA's intended RTP payload type
> for SENDING or RECEIVING RTP?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Greg
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Rockson Li (zhengyli) wrote:
>
>> Greg,
>>
>> Payload Type negotiated will be used as RTP PT in RTP packet.
>> And if you use named events in RFC2833, the events supported are
>> negotiated.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Rockson
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sip-implementors-bounces@list...
>> [mailto:sip-implementors-bounces@list...] On Behalf Of
>> Greg Dykes
>> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 11:26 AM
>> To: sip-implementors@list...
>> Subject: [Sip-implementors] RFC 2833 Telephone-Event RTP Payload Type
>>
>> I'm trying to nail down my understanding of how the RFC 2833 DTMF
>> Telephone-event RTP Payload Type is "negotiated". If I understand
>> correctly, it's really NOT negotiated at all.
>> I understand that static payload types, such as voice codecs (e.g.,
>> PCMA, PCMU) are indeed negotiated. So my question then is with DTMF
>> payload types.
>>
>> From my reading, it appears that a call request INVITE sender
>> specifies a supported RFC 2833 DTMF RTP payload type by defining this
>> RTP payload type with the specific 'telephone-event' rtpmap attribute
>> in the SDP and by including a mapped payload type value (of the
>> sender's choice) in the dynamic range (96-127) within the audio media
>> stream 'm' line. As I understand, the SDP answerer can then respond to
>
>> this request with its own custom mapped payload type value as long as
>> it also defines the DTMF payload type with the specific 'telephone-
>> event' rtpmap attribute in the SDP.
>>
>> So my question is what exactly does the RTP payload type number stand
>> for within the confines of RFC 2833 & DTMF and the SIP UA which
>> specifies the specific payload type number? Is this the payload type
>> used by UA 1 (for example) to indicate which 8 bit number the SIP UA's
>
>> peer (UA 2) is to use in the 7 bit RTP "Payload Type" header when
>> sending DTMF (RFC 2833) to the UA 1? Again as I understand, each UA
>> doesn't have to specify the same RTP payload type number for RFC 2833
>> DTMF to flow between the UAs. It appears two distinct payload types
>> can be used in a single session - one traveling from UA 1 to UA2 and
>> another from UA 2 to UA 1.
>>
>> Can someone confirm this understanding and correct any wrong
>> assumptions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Greg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sip-implementors mailing list
>> Sip-implementors@list...
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@list...
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@list...
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Bookmark with:

Delicious   Digg   reddit   Facebook   StumbleUpon

Related Messages

opensubscriber is not affiliated with the authors of this message nor responsible for its content.