On 3 May 2016, at 17:38, Black, David <david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Ted,
Thanks for expressing concerns ... I have an alternative suggestion:
I'm not so happy adding a description of where other media travels.
Thinking out loud - what if we put the text to cover both interactive media
usage of RTP and non-interactive media usage of something else into the Web
RTC transports draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/)?
That draft has the requisite broader scope, and it’s even not at the RFC
Editor(!).
I tend to think this is a better place. Non-interactive use of RTP would
configure the mechanisms described in the rtp-usage draft differently to
interactive use, and could use larger playout buffers, different DSCP values,
etc., but I wouldn’t expect anything in the rtp-usage draft would be invalid
for non-interactive use.
--
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/