21 Mar
2014
21 Mar
'14
6:29 p.m.
My vote for the renaming. It is very confusing to have mediaproxy-ng +
rtpproxy | rtpproxy-ng modules, when you also have mediaproxy module and
rtpproxy-proxy and mediaproxy-proxy, IYKWIM.
Regards,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Richard Fuchs writes:
--
Carlos
http://caruizdiaz.com
http://ngvoice.com
+595981146623
We're slowly getting ready for a new major
release of mediaproxy-ng
(3.x), which will include some exciting new features, most importantly
much improved support for WebRTC. To support those features, rtpproxy-ng
needs to support additional flags for the offer/answer functions.
This is great news. In my opinion it would be better to rename
rtpproxy-ng module rather than leave its existing version hanging there,
because I'm sure that current users of the module will migrate to the
new one anyhow.
-- Juha
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev