Re: [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 15, 2023, at 07:10, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]> wrote:

- It is not clear to me what RTP profile should be used with this payload format. 

[BA] This seems like it should be easy to resolve. For example, while SAVP could be usable in audio-only scenarios, it seems like you would need SAVPF for video.

Also, why would you ever want AVP or AVPF for such a high security use case?

I don’t see how removing discussion of profiles helps in answering the questions.

>> I don't think removing text here is the appropriate. Rather I would suggest to actually make is clear that there is no requirement to have jitter buffer. Also network SHOULD NOT repackatize the SCIP packets seems like a good recommendation to have.
>> 

[BA] Does SCIP have its own jitter buffer? If not, why are there any unique considerations? Removing text doesn’t make this any more clear.

> I mostly agreed with the resolution agreed with the reviewer and would like to see those changes in the document before we approve this document. 

]BA] The IETF process moves forward based on changes made to documents that resolve comments. Emails are only useful in clarifying *what* needs to change.