[AVT] Re: Review requested: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset-04.txt

"Tom-PT Taylor" <taylor@nortel.com> Thu, 08 February 2007 23:51 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFJ39-0003eh-Vp; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:51:35 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFIyb-0007Dk-TO for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:46:53 -0500
Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com ([47.140.192.56]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFIya-0004Jw-JJ for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:46:53 -0500
Received: from zcarhxs1.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxs1.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.89]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id l18NkoW16701 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:46:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [47.130.19.101] ([47.130.19.101] RDNS failed) by zcarhxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:46:50 -0500
Message-ID: <45CBB657.4010200@nortel.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:46:31 -0500
From: Tom-PT Taylor <taylor@nortel.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avt@ietf.org
References: <4586E60E.20408@nortel.com> <4586E8D6.2070903@nortel.com> <4586E73C.50901@nortel.com> <p06230912c1d2511793b0@[10.0.1.33]> <45ACF914.8040700@nortel.com> <p062309a0c1dcda6fe8ca@[10.0.1.33]> <E319D2A3-2E44-4795-86D8-63465DDC300B@csperkins.org> <p062309c2c1e37868bb4e@[10.0.1.33]> <4A9A2D76-48B4-4C8A-8D29-3B2497C055F1@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A9A2D76-48B4-4C8A-8D29-3B2497C055F1@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040804010703040701020409"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2007 23:46:50.0051 (UTC) FILETIME=[66F39930:01C74BDB]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 85e99493ec37f9acef29c7843dbf2e68
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:51:33 -0500
Subject: [AVT] Re: Review requested: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset-04.txt
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org

Here is what I hope is the last word on the topic: Dave's actions.

Dave Singer wrote:
-------------------

OK, changed the first sentence:

In the RTP specification <xref target="RFC3550"/> network jitter
calculations are based on the presumption that packets are
transmitted essentially in accordance with their RTP timestamps.

and added

The RTP specification does not define a transmission timestamp, and
nor does this specification.  This specification merely provides
information on the relationship between the relative transmission
times and relative RTP timestamps.

and

The reported transmission time T1 of a packet with timestamp R1 and
an offset of O1, from the above equations, is T1 = R1+O1 (though of
course the transmission time values only have meaning when two or
more are compared).

and

The content is exactly that number of interarrival jitter
calculations, calculated using the same formula as for sender and
receiver reports, but taking into account the transmission offsets
for the streams (if any);  that is, using the values T1=R1+O1, T2
etc. as defined above, instead of R1, R2 etc..

I then re-named the symbols to be in accord with the RTP spec (i.e.
using Si for RTP timestamp, not Ri).


-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt