Re: [AVT] WG Last Call for two documents
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 22 December 2009 13:17 UTC
Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F22E3A683F for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:17:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m+w14ISttO86 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lon1-msapost-2.mail.demon.net (lon1-msapost-2.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E913A6823 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:17:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.247.112]) by lon1-post-2.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1NN4ba-0002F0-b9; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:50 +0000
Message-Id: <FBABD2EE-3FD7-4596-A9E8-3ADA91038CB9@csperkins.org>
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
To: "Ali C. Begen" <abegen@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540A84309B@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:16:49 +0000
References: <BLU0-SMTP622C245B59C1817FFC12DFD8C80@phx.gbl> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540A84309B@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>, IETF AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVT] WG Last Call for two documents
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:17:11 -0000
On 28 Oct 2009, at 05:37, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Tom Taylor >> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:47 AM >> To: IETF AVT WG >> Subject: [AVT] WG Last Call for two documents >> >> This is to announce Working Group Last Call for two documents: >> >> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-gsm-hr-01.txt, RTP Payload format for GSM-HR >> >> draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-03.txt, Why RTP Does Not >> Mandate a Single Security Mechanism > > Sorry for the delay. I read the 2nd draft. I have mostly editorial > comments: > > - In section 2, single source multicast should be source-specific > multicast. > - MBMS should be spelled out in section 2, where it appears for the > first time. > - Should there be an appropriate reference to ISMAcryp such as the > ones listed at http://www.isma.tv/spec-request.html? Thanks, we'll fix these in -04. > I wonder why the draft does not say much about the protection of > RTCP traffic. Protection of RTCP messages is rather important as it > may impact many things in an RTP session. The draft intended to refer to RTP as a whole, including both the data transfer and control protocols, and so didn't explicitly call out RTCP as a component. We've added some words to -04 to attempt to clarify this. Cheers, Colin -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/
- [AVT] WG Last Call for two documents Tom Taylor
- Re: [AVT] WG Last Call for two documents Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] WG Last Call for two documents Colin Perkins