ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Last Call: draft-ietf-dccp-rtp (RTP and the DatagramCongestion Control Protocol (DCCP)) to Proposed Standard

2007-06-08 10:38:53
The draft is easy to read and understand.

1. Section 5.2, "Service Codes", refers to DCCP service codes.  Several are
defined in this specification (SC:RTPA, SC:RTPV, SC:RTPT, and SC:RTPO).  The
draft needs to say something about the relationship between the SDP media
type field (the "audio" and "video" of m=audio and m=video) and the DCCP
service code -- I expect they SHOULD match.  

2. I wonder if an optimization would be useful, where
"a=dccp-service-code:SC:RTPV" is assumed if the associated media type is
"video" (m=video); a similar optimization seems reasonable for audio (RTPA
is assumed when the media type is audio (m=audio)).

3. I believe the draft needs to define a value for its IANA-registered DCCP
service codes, as service codes appear to be sent in the DCCP packets
themselves according to RFC4340.

4. I'm surprised a=rtcp (RFC3605) lacked normative language in section 5.1.
I know for UDP this is widely considered best practice.  I'm not confident
that we should expect DCCP will be able to avoid that quagmire.  I suggest
adding something like:

   If RTCP is to be sent on a separate DCCP connection
   to RTP, the RTCP connection SHOULD use the next higher destination
   port number, unless an alternative DCCP port is signalled using the
   "a=rtcp:" attribute [13].  For improved interoperability, "a=rtcp" 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   SHOULD be used whenever an alternative DCCP port is used.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-d

-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:31 PM
To: MMUSIC WG
Subject: [MMUSIC] Fwd: Last Call: draft-ietf-dccp-rtp (RTP 
and the DatagramCongestion Control Protocol (DCCP)) to 
Proposed Standard 


I would like to point out this last call is happening - if you have  
opinions on the SDP usage in this draft - do not reply to 
this email.  
Reply on the IETF list.


Begin forwarded message:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Date: June 6, 2007 7:18:36 AM PDT
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: dccp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-dccp-rtp (RTP and the Datagram  
Congestion  Control Protocol (DCCP)) to Proposed Standard
Reply-To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org

The IESG has received a request from the Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol WG (dccp) to consider the following document:

- 'RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) '
   <draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, 
and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive 
comments to  
the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2007-06-20. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either 
case, please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-06.txt


IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
command=view_id&dTag=15015&rfc_flag=0


_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>