Subject: [AVTCORE] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-avp-codecs-00.txt

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:32:29 -0700

Colin Perkins pointed out that if we do not want to make implementing 
the DVI4 codec a SHOULD in rtcweb, then we need to update the AVP 
profile which rtcweb relies on. I also added, at Colin's suggestion, a 
sentence noting that G.711 may be mandatory in some environments.

Subject: New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-avp-codecs-00.txt
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:17:07 -0700

A new version of I-D, draft-terriberry-avp-codecs-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Timothy B. Terriberry and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-terriberry-avp-codecs
Revision:	 00
Title:		 Update to Recommended Codecs for the AVP RTP Profile
Creation date:	 2012-08-07
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 10
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-terriberry-avp-codecs-00.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-terriberry-avp-codecs
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-terriberry-avp-codecs-00

Abstract:
   [RFC3551] defines the AVP RTP profile, which is the basis for many
   other profiles, such as SAVP [RFC3711], AVPF [RFC4585], and SAVPF
   [RFC5124].  This document updates [RFC3551] (and by extension, the
   profiles that build upon it) to reflect changes in audio codec usage
   since the document was originally published.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 04:01:15 +0000

Hi,
As I said in the meeting, I disagree with Colin that an update of 3551 is
needed.  Rtcweb is producing essentially a suite of profiling/systems
specs, and many other IETF technologies are profiled therein.  I don't see
why AVPF needs to be an exception.
That said, if the group chooses to follow Colin's arguments, should the
resulting (new) profile not have a different name, registration, etc.?
Also, while we are at it, shouldn't we do away with other known and
commonly agreed shortcomings of AVPF?  All pre-reserved payload types come
to mind...
Finally, what about SAVPF?  In the past, we tried to align the two.
Shouldn't this draft not at least mention that it is intended to update
SAVPF as well?
I'm not trying to be difficult here, and I don't want to open a can of
worms larger than necessary.  However, single-use, rtcweb local fixes
ought to be dealt with in rtcweb, and not here.  If these fixes ought to
have general applicability, then, I think, we need to consider thins a bit
more broadly.
Stephan

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:28:10 -0700

> Shouldn't this draft not at least mention that it is intended to update

The draft mentions that SAVPF is derived from AVP (indeed, that is the 
point, since rtcweb is not really interested in AVP by itself). I can 
try to make the language indicate more explicitly that this update 
covers all profiles which include AVP by reference.

As for the rest of your points, I will defer to the consensus of the 
working group.

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:37:36 +0100

On 8 Aug 2012, at 05:01, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi,
> As I said in the meeting, I disagree with Colin that an update of 3551 is needed.  Rtcweb is producing essentially a suite of profiling/systems specs, and many other IETF technologies are profiled therein.  I don't see why AVPF needs to be an exception.

RTCWeb needs something to update RFC 3551 to remove the "SHOULD use DVI4" recommendation. That could be the rtp-usage draft, making the change specific to RTCWeb, or it could be a separate draft. As I understand it, virtually no-one follows the DVI4 recommendation in 3551, so we should reflect reality, and write a general draft updating 3551.

Colin

> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:54:17 +0100

On 7 Aug 2012, at 22:32, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> Colin Perkins pointed out that if we do not want to make implementing the DVI4 codec a SHOULD in rtcweb, then we need to update the AVP profile which rtcweb relies on. I also added, at Colin's suggestion, a sentence noting that G.711 may be mandatory in some environments.

This looks good to me. Thanks for preparing it.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:28:24 +0200

> sentence noting that G.711 may be mandatory in some environments.

This is delightfully short, and would be even shorer if it didn't have 
pagebreaks at every top level section.

I support the publication of this draft.