Re: [payload] New version of draft-ietf-payload-vp8

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Colin, did Harald's response address your concern?

Thanks!

Ben.

On 13 Sep 2015, at 17:31, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> On 09/10/2015 03:28 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> The new text about the Payload Type in Section 4.1 says:
>>
>> Payload type (PT):  In line with the policy in Section 3 of
>>   [RFC3551], applications using the VP8 RTP payload profile MUST
>>   assign a dynamic payload type number to be used in each RTP
>>   session and provide a mechanism to indicate the mapping.  See
>>   Section 6.2 for the mechanism to be used with the Session
>>   Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566].
>>
>> This would be okay, except that RTP profiles that don’t derive from 
>> RFC 3551 could be defined. A better wording might be:
>>
>> Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type for this
>> packet format is outside the scope of this document and will not be
>> specified here.  It is expected that the RTP profile for a particular
>> class of applications will assign a payload type for this encoding,
>> or if that is not done, then a payload type in the dynamic range
>> SHALL be chosen by means of an out-of-band signaling protocol. See
>> Section 6.2 for the mechanism to be used with the Session Description
>> Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566].
>>
> One question about this suggestion (from a general considerations
> perspective): Is there any value at all in having this text in a 
> payload
> type registration?
>
> What we want to say is that this document doesn't change any rules for
> payload type registration - it's simply not relevant to this memo.
>
> That would make the text shorter - we could stop after "will not be
> specified here" in Colin's suggested text.
>
> If the WG thinks the longer text has value, I'm happy to include it, 
> but
> I'm even happier if we can leave it out.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.