[AVTCORE] update to RFC5285 allowing both one byte and two bytes RTP header extesnions in the same RT stream

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Wed, 16 September 2015 07:01 UTC

From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, avt@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:01:34 +0300
Message-ID: <065e01d0f04d$86dd6a30$94983e90$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_065F_01D0F066.AC2D6150"
Thread-Index: AdDwTAAo/mEI86GZR9KFnLWYdG9mxA==
Content-Language: he
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/XXs0JmlvHf1KcKRoinGUGsT_MPE>
Subject: [AVTCORE] update to RFC5285 allowing both one byte and two bytes RTP header extesnions in the same RT stream
Precedence: list

Hi,

As I was corrected by Magnus the conclusion in Parhue was to update RFC5285
allowing both one byte and two bytes RTP header extensions in the same RT
stream but not in the same RTP packet.

 

When working on the update I would like to get feedback on some points made
at the meeting and ones I encountered when looking at RFC5285

 

1.       At the meeting Mo suggested to use ID>15 only for the two bytes RTP
header extensions when mixing in the same RTP stream, is this OK. 

2.       Should it also be applicable when only using two bytes in an RTP
stream

3.       Section 5 mandate that the SDP signaling will be either session or
media level. Mixing is not allowed. I assume it has to do with uniqueness of
the IDs. Should we change it?

4.       We will need to negotiate the support for this mode, is this OK

5.        Since his mode applies to all RTP header extensions in an RTP
stream it should be a new SDP attribute, it can be a media level for only
one SDP RTP session or a session level attribute. Comments?

 

Thanks

Roni Even

[AVTCORE] update to RFC5285 allowing both one byt… Roni Even