Activity for RTSP Specification
-
Magnus Westerlund created a blog post
RFCs are finally Published!
-
juliusfriedman posted a comment on ticket #17
The transport header in the setup request would indicate multicast and an address....
-
I think that would be implementation specific. It should be possible to define a...
-
I think that would be implementation specific. It should be possible to define a...
-
Also if this means on a per stream basis the that is a sdp definition.
-
I think its more than an advisory it tells you that the server can't send more then...
-
I think that certain content types need be specified and if that is done then whatever...
-
What's wrong with 500 or 501 and your own header or body?
-
Why is this needed? Announce / record can already can handle this afaik. Additionally...
-
This is implementation specific. The client would have to issue a setup anyway how...
-
I would settle for the same transport header which would otherwise be received in...
-
I would settle for the same transport header which would otherwise be received in...
-
Wouldn't a mux be indicated by supplying the appropriate client and server port for...
-
There are also issues in the draft, specifically where rtsp expansion is defined....
-
There are also issues in the draft, specifically where rtsp expansion is defined....
-
Safe character '$' in interleaved or tunneled communication causes data losses
