Subject: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:29:49 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Update to Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP)
	Author(s)       : Timothy B. Terriberry
	Filename        : draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02.txt
	Pages           : 4
	Date            : 2013-04-10

Abstract:
   The RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control
   (RTP/AVP) is the basis for many other profiles, such as the Secure
   Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP/SAVP), the Extended RTP Profile for
   Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/
   AVPF), and the Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-Based Feedback
   (RTP/SAVPF).  This document updates the RTP/AVP profile (and by
   extension, the profiles that build upon it) to reflect changes in
   audio codec usage since the document was originally published.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:37:45 -0700

> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02

Changelog for this version:

- Updated profile names to include the "RTP/" prefix.

- Expanded the references in the abstract into document titles, and 
added a sentence to the introduce to actually reference the relevant RFCs.

- Used Magnus's proposal for describing the text updates.

- Used Keith's proposed text: "Some environments REQUIRE support for 
PCMU" (without including an "only").

I did not change anything with respect to PCMA, as I could detect no 
clear consensus on the topic. We have one person arguing that neither 
PCMU nor PCMA should be SHOULD requirements, but I think that's a big 
enough change that more than one person should advocate for it before we 
make it (especially considering that PCMU was recently made a MUST for 
WebRTC).

If I missed any other comments, please let me know!