Subject: RE: AHG comments on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mpeg4-es-03 in response to the last call

From: Kris Huber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:48:46 -0600

Hello Colin,

I'm a bit confused.  It seems to me that one or more of these assumptions
must be wrong:
- that multicast involves one-way communication from one sender to many
receivers
- 'dynamic negotiation' (of payload type in this case) requires two-way
communication.

Perhaps the precise technical definition of 'negotiate' in this case is what
I lack.  The definition of the word as generally used seems to require
two-way communication (A talks to B, B replies to A, A replies back, etc.,
until they converge to agreement).

Thanks for any clarification,
Kris

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:35 AM
To: Luthra, Ajay (SD-EX)
Cc: 'Zvi Lifshitz'; [email-masked]'; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: AHG comments on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mpeg4-es-03 in response
to the last call 

--> "Luthra, Ajay (SD-EX)" writes:
>Will it work this way in Multicast environment also?

Yes.

Colin

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:11:14 -0400

>Thanks for any clarification,

In the typical "mbone conference" style of multicast, the sender advertises
that a named payload format is using a particular payload type. There's no
negotiation (and none needed, since payload type numbers are local to a 
session).

Colin