Subject: RE: RE : RE : [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-report-extns-02.txt

From: "Magnus Westerlund (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:37:38 +0100

Hi Alan,

Comments below.

>To my knowledge the necessary signalling is in place for all other
types of
RTCP reporting. The AVPF defines SDP attribute that allows control of
the
usage of the formats within that proposal. So I don´t think arguing that
it
is a general problem would lessen the need for SDP attributes in regards
to
XR formats.

[Alan] I don't recall seeing any explicit means of turning RTCP reports
on
and off and was only able to locate an expired draft on using SDP to
negotiate RTCP bandwidth.  It would be helpful if you could provide some
references to existing signalling protocols.

[Magnus] The draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-bw-05.txt is not expired. It is actually approved and simple stuck in the RFC-editor queue on the RTP draft. This provides possibility to assign the bandwidth to active senders and receivers only.

>By supporting SDP you support the basic signalling that are currenlty
in
use by the most common real-time media applications using RTP/RTCP. SIP
uses
SDP, RTSP uses SDP.

[Alan] How about H.323?

[Magnus] H.323 is the concern of ITU. It they are going to use XR format does they not also need to standardize it, so that it can be used? At the same time they the can design the necessary signalling extensions. This is after all the IETF and we are not able to go into other standard bodies turf directly. However we need to concern ourself with consitencies to our own protocols and when necessary also other bodies works. In my opinion we need to address SDP as it is will be useful for both SIP and RTSP.

Best Regards

Magnus Westerlund
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt