Emil Ivov wrote:
Hey Alexey,
Hi Emil,
On 27 sept. 2011, at 00:24, Alexey Melnikov <alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com
<mailto:alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Jonathan Lennox wrote:
Hi, Alexey -- thank you for the Gen-ART review.
Hi Jonathan,
Alexey Melnikov writes:
Question: are the two encoding of the audio level indication option
specified in the document really necessary?
Do you mean the one-byte vs. two-byte forms of the header extension
(Figure 1 vs. Figure 2)? These are the two forms of the generic
header extensions defined by RFC 5285.
I understood that. Does RFC 5285 require that both forms should be
allowed?
It doesn't explicitly say so but it It actually does, yes. Here's what
it says:
A stream MUST contain only one-byte or two-byte
headers: they MUST NOT be mixed within a stream.
Audio level headers can find themselves in streams that also have
other, longer extensions, which do require the two-byte header. The
above lines mandate that in such cases they all use the two-byte header.
Ok, this is good enough for me. Thanks for explaining.
In the same regard, although probably a bit less likely, nothing
prevents having another sixteen header extensions in a stream that
also has levels. In that case we'd need to switch to two-byte headers
in order to be able to fit all the IDs.
Cheers,
Emil
--sent from my mobile
In general, it would be good to avoid multiple representations of the
same thing.
The actual payload (one byte containing the V and level bits) is
identical in the two cases; the only difference is the container.
We can add some text clarifying this point if you think it would be
helpful.
Nits/editorial comments:
s/relys/relies ???
Thanks, will fix.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf