ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Late Last Call Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01

2008-09-26 12:28:56
Aurelien,
My suggestion was to have a MUST for the G.729.1 when DTX is offered. There
is no reason for this case to have a should. RFC 3551 is the general case,
for example if you look at G.729.1 it is fixed value.
So change the text based on my comment.
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: aurelien(_dot_)sollaud(_at_)orange-ftgroup(_dot_)com
[mailto:aurelien(_dot_)sollaud(_at_)orange-ftgroup(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 3:06 PM
To: ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Cc: fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
tom(_dot_)taylor(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com; spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Late Last Call Gen-ART review of
draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01

Hi

The current text in section 3 of my draft is mostly a copy/paste from RFC
3551. Are you suggesting to replace the whole block by a reference to
RFC3551 section 4.1?

With you comment that it is specific to G.729.1, I see no reason for an
implementation to not set M=1 as expected. So I'm also OK to replace the
SHOULD by a MUST in the current text.

What option seems the best?

Aurelien


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Roni Even [mailto:ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] 
Envoyé : mardi 23 septembre 2008 12:46
À : 'Spencer Dawkins'; SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-CORE-LAN
Cc : fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
tom(_dot_)taylor(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com
Objet : RE: Late Last Call Gen-ART review of 
draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01

Hi,
This text is just relevant to G.729.1 and not to other 
codecs, so if you want to add a reason for the SHOULD it 
should be based on RFC4749 implementations that would not 
send M=1. Maybe the text should say that if DTX is offered 
the sender must set the M bit according to RFC 3551.
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:45 PM
To: aurelien(_dot_)sollaud(_at_)orange-ftgroup(_dot_)com
Cc: fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com; 
tom(_dot_)taylor(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: Late Last Call Gen-ART review of
draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01

Hi, Aurelien,

I think we're good on almost everything in your response.

On the SHOULD/MUST below, it could very well be OK to have 
this as SHOULD, but we've been asking for some indication of 
reasons why SHOULDs might not be implemented - which could be 
as simple as "there is a lot of deployed code that didn't 
implement this, because it was a SHOULD in RFC 3551".

If you leave this as SHOULD, you might want to say something 
about the effect on receivers, since conformant sender 
implementations aren't doing something that the spec assumed 
they would be doing. In this case, you're saying that the 
receiver can't look at the M-bit to identify the beginning of 
a talkspurt, right?

If you get any other feedback about SHOULD/MUST here, please 
take that into account, of course...

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message -----
From: <aurelien(_dot_)sollaud(_at_)orange-ftgroup(_dot_)com>
To: <spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org>
Cc: <fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; 
<gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; 
<ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; 
<tom(_dot_)taylor(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:20 AM
Subject: RE: Late Last Call Gen-ART review of
draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01


Hi

Thank you for the review.
Below some answers.

Aurelien

3.  RTP Header Usage

   If DTX is used, the first packet of a talkspurt, that 
is, the first
   packet after a silence period during which packets have not been
   transmitted contiguously, SHOULD be distinguished by 
setting the M

Spencer (review): why not MUST here?


[AS] It is the wording from RFC 3551 (4.1).
It could be a MUST, but I saw no reason to be stronger than 
the RTP spec. 




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