Regarding your remaining nit:
Am I interpreting you correctly that you are concerned with RTP streams that
only sends RTCP, never anything else?
We have two concepts in the draft that are affected by this; Source RTP Streams
and Redundancy RTP Streams. If no RTP data is ever sent, how do we distinguish
between an “empty” Source RTP Stream and an “empty” Redundancy RTP Stream?
Would it be enough with a formulation saying that _if_ any RTP data is ever
sent, a Source RTP Stream would take that from an Encoded Stream? Would that
take care of your concern?
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com]
Sent: den 6 juli 2015 22:41
To: General Area Review Team; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
avtext(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Genart Telechat review: draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-07
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq><http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-07
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 6 Jul 2015
IETF LC End Date: past
IESG Telechat date: 9 Jul 2015
Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC
Thanks for addressing the comments I made at LC.
Very small nit:
I still worry that with "at least some content ... at some point during its
lifetime" that you are improperly excluding streams that may never send RTP
packets (because of silence suppression or the way a codec works), when RTCP
will be sent. This could happen in a multimedia situation where multiple
microphones are signaled, but one just happens to never get used for example.