Subject: [AVT] Request for publication (fwd)

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:20:53 -0800 (PST)

FYI.

							-- Steve

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:56:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
To: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>, Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Subject: Request for publication

The AVT Working Group requests publication of the following draft
as a Proposed Standard RFC:

        Title           : Compressing IP/UDP/RTP headers on links with high
                          delay,packet loss and reordering
        Author(s)       : T. Koren, S. Casner, J. Geevarghese,
                          B. Thompson, P. Ruddy
        Filename        : draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-04.txt

At the same time we request publication of the following related draft
as a BCP RFC:

        Title           : Tunneling multiplexed Compressed RTP ('TCRTP')
        Author(s)       : B. Thompson, T. Koren, D. Wing
        Filename        : draft-ietf-avt-tcrtp-06.txt

We believe BCP is the appropriate status for the second draft because
it does not specify any protocol itself, but rather it specifies how a
collection of protocols, including the first draft above, can be used
to implement efficient transmission of a multiplex of RTP streams over
a wide area.

This collection of documents is the solution that AVT has decided best
satisfies the need for RTP multiplexing because it preserves full RTP
semantics.  (The work item for RTP multiplexing is erroneously already
marked Done on our charter, but will be done with the publication of
these drafts.)  Several other proposals for RTP multiplexing were
presented to AVT, indicating a significant desire for a solution to
reduce overhead for IP-based media transport on paths where link-level
compression was not appropriate.  However, the other proposals were
specific to particular applications such as the links between cell
base stations and switching center.  Those proposals only worked with
tightly constrained sets of encodings and did not preserve the full
semantics of RTP.  The working group concluded that these proposals
could be implemented as proprietary protocols but did not merit
standardization.

You may note that draft-ietf-avt-tcrtp-06.txt contains a normative
reference to draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tphc-04.txt which is currently under
review by the IESG.  It may make sense to consider these drafts
together since the multiplexing scheme described by these drafts
demonstrates the utility of l2tphc.  It is possible to use the other
components of the tcrtp scheme without l2tphc, but the efficiency for
small-degree multiplexes would be reduced.  The tcrtp draft provides
examples of bandwidth efficiency calculations.

						-- Steve & Colin

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