RE: [AVT] Retransmission draft

With this disclaimer, I am now confused about the prespective with which I
should read this draft as a (potential) implementator. I understand that
Matsushita may have some IPR in this submission. But now are you saying
that you really don't know why anyone should use this scheme? Would it be
possible to give a scenario or two where the proposed mechanism may be
superior to follow? What is the point in sending this off to IETF RFC
track? 

Thanks in advance for your explanation. 

Vinay Sathe
Multirate Systems

right, how about this:

"This document provides an RTP packet retransmission mechanism for repair of
streaming media.  The purpose of this paragraph is to make the reader aware
that the retransmission mechanism described in this document may be
encumbered by patent applications filed from Matsushita.  For details on the
IPR statement, please visit the IETF IPR web page
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR.

However, packet retransmission is not the only means for streaming clients
and servers to cope with packet losses.  A detailed description of options
for repair of streaming media is given in RFC2354.  Therefore, implementers
of this protocol shall take into account that there are in fact other
mechanisms, such as forward error correction (FEC) or packet interleaving
that represent an alternative to solve the problems packet retransmission
tries to solve.    In particular RFC2733 and RFC2198 present FEC and
redundant packet transmission schemes that might well fit to the needs of
the implementer. "

José

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

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