Subject: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06

From: "Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:56:57 -0700

Hi,

The current incarnation of the draft says:

   The CN packet update rate is left implementation 
   specific.  For example, the CN packet may be sent periodically or 
   only when there is a significant change in the background noise 
   characteristics.

The latter scheme is undesirable when the transport is unreliable (as most
RTP currently is). Shouldn't the draft recommend a minimum update period?
This would also be beneficial given that endpoints may also rely on period
comfort noise packets for keeping firewall holes open, it would be nice if
there was a recommendation that they should be sent AT LEAST every so often.

Regards,

Robert.

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