IETF Logo Mail Archive

[AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06

"Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert" <rfairlie@nuera.com> Tue, 11 June 2002 16:55 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02724 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA06545 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:56:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06506; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:55:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06475 for <avt@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:55:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchange1.nuera.com ([12.105.228.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02711 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:54:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by exchange1.nuera.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <MNA22N18>; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:56:58 -0700
Message-ID: <E79883AEA37FD411A58C00508BAC5F4B01D38D7D@exchange1.nuera.com>
From: "Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert" <rfairlie@nuera.com>
To: "'avt@ietf.org'" <avt@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:56:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org

Hi,

The current incarnation of the draft says:

   The CN packet update rate is left implementation 
   specific.  For example, the CN packet may be sent periodically or 
   only when there is a significant change in the background noise 
   characteristics.

The latter scheme is undesirable when the transport is unreliable (as most
RTP currently is). Shouldn't the draft recommend a minimum update period?
This would also be beneficial given that endpoints may also rely on period
comfort noise packets for keeping firewall holes open, it would be nice if
there was a recommendation that they should be sent AT LEAST every so often.

Regards,

Robert.

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email