Re: [AVTCORE] Multi-party real-time text requiring new RTP payload type (fwd)

Jonathan Lennox <> Fri, 24 April 2020 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EDC3A07ED for <>; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Asfsw0uSp6uR for <>; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6806E3A0814 for <>; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n143so10331949qkn.8 for <>; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=googlemail; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=4pvdzzSwufUxRM2GGIyzeo0/GNIL3ETiCzTr5ZDjVYw=; b=kABiKnpFphGw3nLd9q8Q5mdYa8PSJdkInB2WecgvKwW4c8vDc5jVq2W03I6xQYbFQL w6JMGlJqb/NOjJLW4bIHyKzsQaxuSny8H4XakXa4Kmgz3Zb2O8H3t32bHwZqtZMcUWQW e9/RuTv27kRK1kdEBI17S+tSwQWqXLk63ybPA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=4pvdzzSwufUxRM2GGIyzeo0/GNIL3ETiCzTr5ZDjVYw=; b=jUIrqNtHucsXAf7vu6FHaLF8Vm+fxDXqxQTa3VEoDLxwPIz/IjLRL67Q7nmA/VuqW/ yyXQ9AKzmpJsbjgS93gwllCU50V9B25IwL90wYoknBNzZzK/8NMkadjR0FnhUxZJWeXH pGsPML8k6iYqZZqFBVfs9fBUfUrjdkQrvM9XzoN9wbDt5NjWhNcVH/gPsyvDPulNJahg tjOXQmKTrltHsIFJm7UOYypVbK8AGcsqdD0Q4YIxs/S7FN0FHSNc5sgycud19lWm2B// BLUkNYiWxfrIU0LCaZ2oSGEIY89IY+8s8SOT6dv5NMN3q0DIUUgwTgkeuHHrfqz4ian8 dOaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZ//qujsmYzHiEOvaUOw9MMcVIc4dc6eYs0F1CA2jV/iWN27VYn +2xn9IZQ1p3yb2WLNZxe+BNSaUUyiO0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKIBm7MSMS2fQuUEh6CGvgqHzQ0L6SUlHGFVLIbiskyP1XrkG2RbIzj9RLKtJkmON/+tRd2vw==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:b03:: with SMTP id 3mr8719767qkl.67.1587739077913; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:86:101:74d0:51c8:7797:f477:e0b9? ([2601:86:101:74d0:51c8:7797:f477:e0b9]) by with ESMTPSA id l9sm3937442qth.60.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jonathan Lennox <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C9CAB740-2EBA-4256-AD9B-292D9E6ADC90"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:37:56 -0400
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Multi-party real-time text requiring new RTP payload type (fwd)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:38:01 -0000

> On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:22 PM, (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
> Gunnar Hellstr\"om <> writes:
>> Thanks, a good question. It is the right time to consider which source 
>> multiplexing and reliability method to select, now when we need to 
>> introduce a new negotiation.
> My idea wasn't that I had any better idea, but rather that there were
> some obvious ideas, and clearly, people who had studied the matter found
> that the obvious ideas were not the best.  What I really meant was that
> it would be useful to give brief documentation why the obvious ideas
> aren't best.

As chair, my initial judgement was that there wasn’t any need to publish the draft-hellstrom-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-solutions draft as an RFC; I felt it was useful as a development document but didn’t need to go through the whole IETF consensus process.

That said, all decisions are of course subject to WG consensus, so if you disagree and think this would be useful as an informational document, let us know.

Jonathan Lennox
AVTCORE co-chair