IETF Logo Mail Archive

[payload] Comment to draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-01

Tina le Grand <tina.legrand@webrtc.org> Fri, 06 September 2013 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <tlegrand@google.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A35821E80E3 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 05:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22gPnwKyVHEl for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 05:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F4221E80B3 for <payload@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 05:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id u16so6454710iet.20 for <payload@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 05:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=xxAFwpzj9hGwVlGvcZ+zWTSnN69Hvks1V7adcvZdKhE=; b=DCyw7GAaahg1l/O9OQYv/THhLxMKpKjJMeb22q/EcBBcauXNk63Ak06MrlqHCGvBpV qfAkbSqABiRuDL3o/0qnkmi87Gh8pftZaOVyjDbPA9QF8ANPz+RCz8hyEHc0VOQ3hoqA WFu3KgZ6zVrt2TLcuCLKoRxzYOdqxFHf8dj0d0KY5SUGGecXyxBG1XOdKEjqLGmZ+BE3 wd9NyPRDzI8Q/NMiVL127Ruv/cbO50+LPf/g4fyFNPv/4jUK2DAxKqbNcx4VyWeZ5vGG VfjYtip1gov47JYYBF6eTMdlx08WEjpOgyWEbGL7nzlboIq2y9FuDAHTDvacAhBpxIIP dRxw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to:content-type; bh=xxAFwpzj9hGwVlGvcZ+zWTSnN69Hvks1V7adcvZdKhE=; b=fj213A+e8mlwaI9yB7d7LyiJkT/hYBnAD9wFUTXMujzvQwN6Q71TDaKop2v+NdCeFq sqrW5Rv8eukVD9eVJWcL9seLO4qNwJOtjS9gyJtseG+pzLstajjeRuEfEM2UDfue9Wn9 1kIhbdnEjY33yOEYqpZQ8l99UbZYUT7J4L/9mP+6zWXo/lvEml+1pbDc7TPjig/asLIL YGjUQp+eG8pua1mvWvWU4XAT5+x+1gxZ+x6e1q14VpMibOzsV+Rrfw/VrPYJ1C60NPhH pUN8IyEHCX4LiY7Ht+2BGTFGYvqZzAJJ6pmN8QZmZXamIZCSkY6rpdQ+jI+U536H3Gg8 NeDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk2UHVwfNclMxfte0/wsfzq+etksNaJdNbYQv8qVehkzOryKr8Eowc6ER2LxrXj4jamUfPqIzFP4QmkhNZdH8HT644zEzWdCHqqEBMoTYayMahqDlvqDtIqTYL0b4/egh7BgQnSYNNIvELx5zNlFhfBmfi/IxCJHTLep6QH0kpklU064gyfJ2cnQzZGrWn6HEb2O+El
X-Received: by 10.42.82.73 with SMTP id c9mr1256813icl.32.1378469726662; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 05:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tlegrand@google.com
Received: by 10.64.26.165 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 05:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tina le Grand <tina.legrand@webrtc.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:15:06 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ro0Ij9wn_CwBdJOhNUruqAwTdyM
Message-ID: <CAKsXFw6J84TW+EXc5QKsAMONfpH=Stfy8M07g_hsog5q=ygmXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: payload@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf303345836448c304e5b5fe5f"
Subject: [payload] Comment to draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-01
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/payload>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:15:28 -0000

In section 3.1.3 Discontinuous Transmission (DTX), I'm missing some text
that explains how to update the RTP packets correctly after a silent
period. How should rtp timestamp and sequence number be updated while not
sending rtp packets (silent period), to prepare for when we eventually have
data to transmit again? My thinking is that rtp timestamp should be updated
with the number of samples that were not sent, while sequence number should
only be updated when sending packets. Correct?

/Tina le Grand.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email