RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06
"Campos, Simao" <simao.campos@itu.int> Tue, 11 June 2002 18:05 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 OAA05971 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:05:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA10478 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:06:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA10446; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:05:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA10417 for <avt@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:05:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exch_arch.itu.ch (exch-arch.itu.ch [156.106.128.44]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05948 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by EXCH-ARCH.itu.ch with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <L3F6LP7R>; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:05:06 +0200
Message-ID: <49ED700A32CFD511B72900508B959DFE0180035D@MAILSRV4.itu.ch>
From: "Campos, Simao" <simao.campos@itu.int>
To: "'Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert'" <rfairlie@nuera.com>, "'avt@ietf.org'" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:55:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
Robert, I see your point but please keep in mind that a mandatory minimum rate might break interoperability scenarios (say PSTN->VoIP->PSTN) if the systems outside the IP network behave differently from a "mandatory" setup. Additionally, this issue is very system-specific and I am not aware of a well-accept threshold for it; some systems use every 5 seconds, others every 20s... It might be hard to nail down a number. This might be a parameter negotiated/communicated at session establishment, so both ends would know what to expect and adjust accordingly. Just my 2 cents anyway. Best regards, Simao > -----Original Message----- > From: Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert [mailto:rfairlie@nuera.com] > Sent: 11 June 2002 18:57 > To: 'avt@ietf.org' > Subject: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06 > > > Hi, > > The current incarnation of the draft says: > > The CN packet update rate is left implementation > specific. For example, the CN packet may be sent periodically or > only when there is a significant change in the background noise > characteristics. > > The latter scheme is undesirable when the transport is > unreliable (as most > RTP currently is). Shouldn't the draft recommend a minimum > update period? > This would also be beneficial given that endpoints may also > rely on period > comfort noise packets for keeping firewall holes open, it > would be nice if > there was a recommendation that they should be sent AT LEAST > every so often. > > Regards, > > Robert. > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06 Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert
- RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06 Campos, Simao
- RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06 Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert
- [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06 Oren Peleg
- RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06 Robert Zopf