Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-05.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Emil Ivov wrote:

> Hey Alexey,

Hi Emil,

> On 27 sept. 2011, at 00:24, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Alexey -- thank you for the Gen-ART review.
>>
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>>> Alexey Melnikov writes:
>>
>>>> Question: are the two encoding of the audio level indication option 
>>>> specified in the document really necessary?  
>>>
>>> Do you mean the one-byte vs. two-byte forms of the header extension 
>>> (Figure 1 vs. Figure 2)?  These are the two forms of the generic 
>>> header extensions defined by RFC 5285.
>>
>> I understood that. Does RFC 5285 require that both forms should be 
>> allowed?
>
> It doesn't explicitly say so but it It actually does, yes. Here's what 
> it says:
>
>   A stream MUST contain only one-byte or two-byte
>   headers: they MUST NOT be mixed within a stream.
>
>
> Audio level headers can find themselves in streams that also have 
> other, longer extensions, which do require the two-byte header. The 
> above lines mandate that in such cases they all use the two-byte header.

Ok, this is good enough for me. Thanks for explaining.

> In the same regard, although probably a bit less likely, nothing 
> prevents having another sixteen header extensions in a stream that 
> also has levels. In that case we'd need to switch to two-byte headers 
> in order to be able to fit all the IDs.
>
> Cheers,
> Emil
>
> --sent from my mobile
>
>> In general, it would be good to avoid multiple representations of the 
>> same thing.
>
>>
>>> The actual payload (one byte containing the V and level bits) is 
>>> identical in the two cases; the only difference is the container. 
>>>  We can add some text clarifying this point if you think it would be 
>>> helpful.
>>
>>>
>>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>
>>>> s/relys/relies ???
>>>
>>>>   
>>>
>>> Thanks, will fix.
>>