[AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-09.txt submitted
Tom Taylor <taylor@nortel.com> Wed, 15 June 2005 14:19 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DiYji-0000gj-E3; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:19:22 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DiYjg-0000fz-Nx for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:19:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20016 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:19:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DiZ6N-0002tR-Pd for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:42:48 -0400
Received: from zcard303.ca.nortel.com (zcard303.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.59]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j5FEIwi25441; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:18:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (acart22d.ca.nortel.com [47.130.25.22]) by zcard303.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id MRAFNXF8; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:18:44 -0400
Message-ID: <42B038BE.3060807@nortel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:18:38 -0400
X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
From: Tom Taylor <taylor@nortel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avt@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: scott.petrack@edial.com, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-09.txt submitted
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org
I have submitted draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-09.txt. The substantive changes from -08 followed largely from comments by Magnus. I also did another editorial pass to clarify the odd point. Here are the changes in detail. 1. Deleted an erroneous mention of floating point for the "rate" parameter in section 2.4. 2. Moved the "Application Considerations" from section 5, since they dealt with events only. I merged them with the old "Reliability" section 2.6 into a single much re-written section on "Congestion and Performance". Magnus indicated that our Chairs are encouraging the inclusion of a discussion on adjusting to congestion in AVT documentation in general. I'm hoping the one I've put together is helpful. The rewritten 2.6 is mainly advice -- there are only two normative sentences: "Where Section 2.5.1.4 indicates that it is appropriate to use the RFC 2198 [2] audio redundancy mechanism to carry retransmissions of final event reports, this mechanism MAY also be used to extend the number of final report retransmissions." This was old text. I deleted the proposal of exponential back-off on extra events that I had added previously somewhere in that paragraph, realizing that it was inappropriate in this context. "In view of the tradeoffs between the different reliability mechanisms, documentation of specific events SHOULD include a discussion of the appropriate design decisions for the applications of those events." 2. Expanded discussion of DTMF applications in its own sub-section. Tossed in a description of DTMF-based text messaging, since it really belongs here as much as in the V.18 discussion in 2833bisdata. Added a subsection on congestion handling as it affects DTMF events. 3. Added a subsection on congestion handling for the tones payload. 4. Modified the "IANA Considerations" section to use the exact terminology of RFC 2434. I added considerations for the expert reviewer to apply in reviewing documents from non-IETF bodies seeking to register additional events. This advice springs from my uncertainty about my authority in reviewing requests to register new Megaco packages. Please have a look. Tom Taylor _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt