Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [mmusic] #13: Section 5.14

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 22:55:27 +0000

Hi Bernard,

Do you think this is necessary?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xml#sdp-param
eters-2 lists bunch of other protos that we don't list in 5.14.

The text in 8.2.2 is clear saying that:

If other RTP profiles are defined in the future, their "proto" name
   SHOULD be specified in the same manner.  For example, an RTP profile
   whose short name is "XYZ" would be denoted by a "proto" field of
   "RTP/XYZ".

I don't think we need to clutter the text with more examples.

-acbegen

-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic issue tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Saturday, September 22, 2012 3:48 PM
To: "Ali C. Begen" <[email-masked]>, Bernard Aboba
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [mmusic] #13: Section 5.14

>#13: Section 5.14
>
> In Section 5.14 the <proto> description only mentions RTP/AVP and
> RTP/SAVP.  RTP/AVPF and RTP/SAVPF should also be mentioned.
>
>-- 
>--------------------------------+------------------------
> Reporter:  bernard_aboba@Š     |      Owner:  abegen@Š
>     Type:  defect              |     Status:  new
> Priority:  major               |  Milestone:  milestone1
>Component:  rfc4566bis          |    Version:  1.0
> Severity:  Active WG Document  |   Keywords:
>--------------------------------+------------------------
>
>Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mmusic/trac/ticket/13>
>mmusic <http://tools.ietf.org/mmusic/>
>