Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-avp-codecs-00.txt

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 08 August 2012 07:37 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7173521F8648 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S-enZeNbuHgh for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anchor-msapost-1.mail.demon.net (anchor-msapost-1.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A530F21F8645 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from starkperkins.demon.co.uk ([80.176.158.71] helo=[192.168.0.11]) by anchor-post-1.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1Sz0pl-0003Gr-hX; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:37:37 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <CC473115.8A2D7%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:37:36 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1C25B3E0-F704-47AA-B6A6-4CCC163D28BC@csperkins.org>
References: <CC473115.8A2D7%stewe@stewe.org>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-avp-codecs-00.txt
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:37:39 -0000

On 8 Aug 2012, at 05:01, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi,
> As I said in the meeting, I disagree with Colin that an update of 3551 is needed.  Rtcweb is producing essentially a suite of profiling/systems specs, and many other IETF technologies are profiled therein.  I don't see why AVPF needs to be an exception.

RTCWeb needs something to update RFC 3551 to remove the "SHOULD use DVI4" recommendation. That could be the rtp-usage draft, making the change specific to RTCWeb, or it could be a separate draft. As I understand it, virtually no-one follows the DVI4 recommendation in 3551, so we should reflect reality, and write a general draft updating 3551.

Colin



> That said, if the group chooses to follow Colin's arguments, should the
> resulting (new) profile not have a different name, registration, etc.?
> Also, while we are at it, shouldn't we do away with other known and
> commonly agreed shortcomings of AVPF?  All pre-reserved payload types come
> to mind...
> Finally, what about SAVPF?  In the past, we tried to align the two.
> Shouldn't this draft not at least mention that it is intended to update
> SAVPF as well?
> I'm not trying to be difficult here, and I don't want to open a can of
> worms larger than necessary.  However, single-use, rtcweb local fixes
> ought to be dealt with in rtcweb, and not here.  If these fixes ought to
> have general applicability, then, I think, we need to consider thins a bit
> more broadly.
> Stephan
> 
> 
> On 8.7.2012 14:32 , "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org> wrote:
> 
>> Colin Perkins pointed out that if we do not want to make implementing
>> the DVI4 codec a SHOULD in rtcweb, then we need to update the AVP
>> profile which rtcweb relies on. I also added, at Colin's suggestion, a
>> sentence noting that G.711 may be mandatory in some environments.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt



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