Re: [AVT] Inquiry about RFC 4629 (optional parameters in SDP)

"Even, Roni" <roni.even@polycom.co.il> writes:
>The reason for this selection of annexes was based on the ones being
>used by products in the markets.  There is no need to specify parameters
>that are not used.

Ummm... that just seems totally confused to me.  We won't provide a way
to negotiate feature X because no one currently uses feature X - but if you
can't negotiate it, what use is it to implement it?  (Other than in a 
private, non-RFC-based, non-interoperable setup.)

It just asks people to either ignore the standard and go totally
proprietary, extend it ad-hoc and quite possibly incompatibly, or
cut off any work on using those annexes ever.

>You can also use annex X based profiles for specifying other application
>based profile.

Which is basically a private, incompatible negotiation.

I realize this is the way the RFC is; I'm just wondering as to why.  Maybe
the point was no one had implemented them and the WG believed no would
would implement them for good reason, and they were effectively deprecated.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Worldgate (developers of the Ojo videophone), ex-Amiga OS team
rjesup@wgate.com
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons
provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad."
		- James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)

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