I'll just respond on RTP here...
On 03/03/2010 05:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
<snip>
(2) Abstract, last sentence
The new elaborations on RTP seem to be inappropriate.
RTP isn't a "classical" transport protocol.
RFC 3550 says (Section 11, 2nd para):
"RTP relies on the underlying protocol(s) to provide demultiplexing of
RTP data and RTCP control streams. For UDP and similar protocols, ..."
[...]
Therefore, I suggest to drop the clause on RTP entirely:
FWIW, Dan Wing suggested this as one of the possible ways forward for
the RTP issue. So unless anybody disagrees I will apply your prosed change.
To me, it would seem OK to see RTP removed from the Abstract.
I would though very much prefer to see it still described in the draft,
since it is an example of an important transport "layer" that is
impacted by the methods described in the draft. You may like to think
whether to break the sentence at the end of the introduction into two,
with the final part something like:
This may also benefit protocols layered on transport protocols, such as
RTP [RFC3550] (provided the RTP application explicitly signals the RTP
and RTCP port numbers with e.g.[RFC3605]).
Gorry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf