Providing H.245 like capability exchanges with Megaco, using SDP
draft-huitema-megaco-discuss-sdp-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Christian Huitema | ||
| Last updated | 1999-06-01 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This memo is a contribution to the ongoing debate in the Megaco working group on the use of SDP or H.245 to describe Termination Descriptors. One of the stingy point in the debate has been the need, for some gate- ways, to provide H.323 compatible 'capability exchanges.' It has some- times been asserted that such exchanges would be hard to provide with an SDP syntax. This memo, on the contrary, provides a simple solution to the problem, based on the following ideas: * usage of SDP to describe termination parameters, * usage of the audit procedure to enquire about capabilities, * a syntax in the audit procedure allowing to return several termination descriptors, corresponding to alternative capability sets, * an algorithm for translating a set of SDP encoded capability sets into an H.245 capability descriptor.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)