Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-perkins-rtcweb-usage-03 (Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-perkins-rtcweb-rtp-usage-03.txt)

[Randell Jesup <[e-mail]>]

On 8/30/2011 12:22 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>
>> - In section 3, you make the point that improper signalling of bandwidth can cause failure to interoperate (because of differing RTCP timings). Is there a (possibly theoretical) problem with interoperation between RTP/AVP and RTP/AVPF too, or have we verified that the AVPF profile always sends enough RTCP packets that AVP-conformant endpoints don't time out?
> I'm not aware of any problems here. They were designed to interoperate.

Agreed, this should be fine and has been done a lot.

>> - In section 6, I would recommend removing the point about scenarios with mixers using point-to-point RTP sessions are "not well utilizing the mechanisms of RTP" - I think people's engineering tradeoffs should be respected.
>> I'm fine with leaving in the comment about protocol violations (although I'd like to be more specific about what they are - protocols shouldn't be violated; if people "have" to do that, there's something wrong with the protocol).
Or they're handling a usecase that isn't covered by the protocol or wasn't anticipated.
That may not be something "wrong" with the protocol - they may be using the wrong
protocol, or they may need a new protocol, or they may need an extension to the protocol
to cover this new usecase.

If it's a "covered" usecase, then there's something wrong with the protocol.


-- 
Randell Jesup
[e-mail]