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

From: "Campos, Simao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:55:54 +0200

Robert, 

I see your point but please keep in mind that a mandatory minimum rate might
break interoperability scenarios (say PSTN->VoIP->PSTN) if the systems
outside the IP network behave differently from a "mandatory" setup.
Additionally, this issue is very system-specific and I am not aware of a
well-accept threshold for it; some systems use every 5 seconds, others every
20s... It might be hard to nail down a number.

This might be a parameter negotiated/communicated at session establishment,
so both ends would know what to expect and adjust accordingly.

Just my 2 cents anyway.

Best regards,
Simao

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fairlie-Cuninghame, Robert [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 11 June 2002 18:57
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-06
> 
> 
> 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
> 

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