Subject: [MMUSIC] FW: [Fecframe] Question on draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-00

From: "Ali Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:25:58 -0800

Just in case, if there any MMUSIC folks who did not receive this email
from Mark.
 
-acbegen

________________________________

From: Mark Watson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:30 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Fecframe] Question on draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-00

All,

Within the fecframe working group we are considering the possible use of
this draft, or an extension of this syntax, to specify the various
relationships which can exist between FEC flows and the source flows
they protect.

The following question came up in the discussion. The draft states at
the end of section 1:

"The mechanisms defined herein are media transport protocol independent,
i.e. applicable beyond the use of RTP [RFC3550]"

However, the mechanisms then defined appear to rely on Payload Types,
which are specific to RTP, to specify the relationships between flows.
That is, the syntax specifies relationships between RTP flows defined by
( UDP Port, Payload Type ) pairs.

Either the draft should be generalised to also allow specification of
relationships between UDP flows (defined just by the UDP port) or the
above sentence should be removed.

Should there be an IANA registry for dependency-types ?

...Mark Watson 
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic