IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-bw-05.txt question

Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org> Thu, 03 July 2003 21:20 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07320 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:20:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YBVG-0002jE-3c for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:20:30 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63LKU0M010448 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:20:30 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YBUw-0002hh-N3; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:20:10 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YBUK-0002h3-BJ for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:19:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07300 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YBUI-0003KJ-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:19:30 -0400
Received: from www.routeexplorer.com ([65.192.41.10] helo=mailman.packetdesign.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YBUG-0003Je-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:19:28 -0400
Received: from ash.packetdesign.com (ash.packetdesign.com [192.168.0.243]) by mailman.packetdesign.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h63LIj05064210; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:18:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from casner@acm.org)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:18:44 -0700
From: Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>
To: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@real.com>
cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-bw-05.txt question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.51.0307030942430.21326@raven.dev.prognet.com>
Message-ID: <20030703141746.M66738-100000@ash.packetdesign.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
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>

Aaron,

> What is the expected behavior if only a b=RR line is specified and it's
> value is greater than 5% of the stream bandwidth. The draft says that if
> only one parameter is specified then the value of the other is determined
> by subracting the value of the specified parameter from 5% of the stream
> bitrate. In the case I have mentioned this would cause a negative
> bandwidth to be calculated. That is obviously not valid. Could someone
> please clarify what should happen in this case.

I propose to simply say that the unspecified parameter is zero in that
case.
                                                        -- Steve


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

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status