Subject: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-09.txt submitted

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:18:38 -0400

I have submitted draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-09.txt.  The substantive 
changes from -08 followed largely from comments by Magnus.  I also did 
another editorial pass to clarify the odd point.  Here are the changes 
in detail.

1. Deleted an erroneous mention of floating point for the "rate" 
parameter in section 2.4.

2. Moved the "Application Considerations" from section 5, since they 
dealt with events only.  I merged them with the old "Reliability" 
section 2.6 into a single much re-written section on "Congestion and 
Performance".  Magnus indicated that our Chairs are encouraging the 
inclusion of a discussion on adjusting to congestion in AVT 
documentation in general.  I'm hoping the one I've put together is helpful.

The rewritten 2.6 is mainly advice -- there are only two normative 
sentences:

   "Where Section 2.5.1.4 indicates that it is appropriate to use the
    RFC 2198 [2] audio redundancy mechanism to carry retransmissions
    of final event reports, this mechanism MAY also be used to extend
    the number of final report retransmissions."

This was old text.  I deleted the proposal of exponential back-off on 
extra events that I had added previously somewhere in that paragraph, 
realizing that it was inappropriate in this context.

   "In view of the tradeoffs between the different reliability
    mechanisms, documentation of specific events SHOULD include a
    discussion of the appropriate design decisions for the applications
    of those events."

2. Expanded discussion of DTMF applications in its own sub-section. 
Tossed in a description of DTMF-based text messaging, since it really 
belongs here as much as in the V.18 discussion in 2833bisdata.  Added a 
subsection on congestion handling as it affects DTMF events.

3. Added a subsection on congestion handling for the tones payload.

4. Modified the "IANA Considerations" section to use the exact 
terminology of RFC 2434.  I added considerations for the expert reviewer 
to apply in reviewing documents from non-IETF bodies seeking to register 
additional events.  This advice springs from my uncertainty about my 
authority in reviewing requests to register new Megaco packages.  Please 
have a look.

Tom Taylor

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