Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02.txt

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <> Wed, 10 April 2013 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3607721F8D0F for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KtkOcQavsU5C for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEC021F8D09 for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B02A0F2252 for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:37:45 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.16.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:37:48 -0000 wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:

Changelog for this version:

- Updated profile names to include the "RTP/" prefix.

- Expanded the references in the abstract into document titles, and 
added a sentence to the introduce to actually reference the relevant RFCs.

- Used Magnus's proposal for describing the text updates.

- Used Keith's proposed text: "Some environments REQUIRE support for 
PCMU" (without including an "only").

I did not change anything with respect to PCMA, as I could detect no 
clear consensus on the topic. We have one person arguing that neither 
PCMU nor PCMA should be SHOULD requirements, but I think that's a big 
enough change that more than one person should advocate for it before we 
make it (especially considering that PCMU was recently made a MUST for 

If I missed any other comments, please let me know!