Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [Fecframe] Question ondraft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-00

From: "Even, Roni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:14:59 +0200

Hi,

I see the discussion and I wonder why use PT and not labels (RFC 4574)

Roni Even

________________________________

From: Thomas Schierl [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:31 AM
To: 'Mark Watson'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [MMUSIC] RE: [Fecframe] Question
ondraft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-00

Hi Mark,

Our original intent was to keep the draft transport independent.
However, that has turned out to be difficult.  The PT dependency has
been put in after long discussions based on a proposal by Magnus, and is
now a necessary and integral part of the draft.

The sentence cited is a leftover from the earlier days, and should have
been removed.  We will update the draft accordingly.

Attempting to re-generalize the draft would not only lead to delay, but
would most likely also run us into the same problems that have forced us
to put this transport protocol dependency into the draft in the first
place.  Therefore, we do not favor such an approach.

Best regards,

Stephan and Thomas

From: Mark Watson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:30 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Fecframe] Question on draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-00

All,

Within the fecframe working group we are considering the possible use of
this draft, or an extension of this syntax, to specify the various
relationships which can exist between FEC flows and the source flows
they protect.

The following question came up in the discussion. The draft states at
the end of section 1:

"The mechanisms defined herein are media transport protocol independent,
i.e. applicable beyond the use of RTP [RFC3550]"

However, the mechanisms then defined appear to rely on Payload Types,
which are specific to RTP, to specify the relationships between flows.
That is, the syntax specifies relationships between RTP flows defined by
( UDP Port, Payload Type ) pairs.

Either the draft should be generalised to also allow specification of
relationships between UDP flows (defined just by the UDP port) or the
above sentence should be removed.

Should there be an IANA registry for dependency-types ?

...Mark Watson 

----
Visit us at

GSMA Mobile World Congress / Barcelona, Spain / 11-14 February 2008 /
Broadcast Mobile Convergence Forum / Booth 2B82
http://www.mobileworldcongress.com/homepage.htm
<ttp://www.mobileworldcongress.com/homepage.htm> 

OFC 2008 / San Diego, California, USA / 26 - 28 February 2008 / Booth
411/415
http://www.ofcnfoec.org <ttp://www.ofcnfoec.org> 

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic