Re: [AVT] Working Group LastCall: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-03.txt

On 26 Apr 2008, at 17:11, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]
>>
>> Static payload types were deprecated over a decade ago. Negotiating a
>> no-op payload type in SDP makes sense, but I really don't want to
>> revisit static assignments.
>
> Yeah, I knew you'd say that. :)
> I'd be happy if there were at least some SDP indication.  Even if  
> the sender ignores the lack of it in received SDP and sends empty  
> RTP anyway, it would be useful to have it indicate support for it  
> and its PT in the SDP it sends.

Sure, I have no argument with that.

>>> I find it odd that a WG BCP would recommend a mechanism (albeit a
>>> fallback one), that is not itself defined in a standards track doc
>>> anywhere.  Maybe it's just me though. :)
>>
>> There were also concerns about having IPR on a no-op format, if I
>> remember correctly. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/854/
>
> I thought that was Cisco's classic defensive patent statement,  
> which other IETF RFC's have been OK with.  And I'm suggesting a  
> different form of no-op: an empty one.  Regardless, if an empty RTP  
> is covered by that IPR, then so is this keepalive draft, no?

Possibly - you'd have to ask Cisco.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt