[sr-dev] Redesign of rtpproxy control protocol

Andreas Granig agranig at sipwise.com
Sat Jun 2 01:19:08 CEST 2012


Hi Peter,

On 06/01/2012 07:25 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> My personal opinion is that we should pass the entire SDP (wrapped
> into json perhaps) - codec mapping and their parameters, encryption
> keys, stun data - this all could be useful for the rtpproxy backend.
> Otherwise it looks good.

When taking into account all kinds of use-cases like ICE handling
between ICE/non-ICE clients and srtp bridging for webrtc, as well as
transcoding for "normal" clients, it makes sense to pass the full SDP
body to the rtpproxy and expecting a full SDP body back in response.

Maybe some basic wrapping which includes generic and SIP specific values
(like the cookie, call-id, tags, branches, IPv4/IPv6 bridging etc) as
well as the full SDP for a request, and for responses a status and again
the full SDP would be sufficient.

That way, we'd get also get rid of certain flags in the rtpproxy module.

Andreas

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20120602/17273566/attachment-0001.pgp>


More information about the sr-dev mailing list