Subject: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-04

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:07:21 +0900

Hi Roni,

Magnus and I reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-04 again, to resolve our conflicting comments. We have the following proposed changes.

Section 10.1 has a bullet point:

2. that the extension complies with the requirements of RTP and
   this specification, for extensions;

we suggest changing this to:

2. that the extension complies with the requirements of RTP, and
   this specification, for header extensions (specifically, that
   the header extension can be ignored or discarded without 
   breaking the RTP layer);

Section 4.1 has the text:

   This specification updates the requirement from the RTP specification
   that the header extension "is designed so that the header extension
   MAY be ignored".  To be specific, header extensions using this
   specification SHOULD be used for data that can safely be ignored by
   the recipient without affecting interoperability, there can be
   essential header extensions for interoperability and intermediaries
   SHOULD NOT remove such header extensions.  Note that the support of
   header extension as specified in this recommendation is negotiated.
   RTP Header extensions MUST NOT be used when the presence of the
   extension has changed the form or nature of the rest of the packet in
   a way that is not compatible with the way the stream is signaled
   (e.g., as defined by the payload type).  Valid examples might include
   metadata that is additional to the usual RTP information, e.g.  Audio
   level from Client to mixer [RFC6464].

Add at the end of this:

   Note that some header extensions, for example MID [BUNDLE] might, 
   if removed, disrupt the behaviour of the higher-level application 
   that builds on RTP, but are acceptable since they do not affect 
   interoperability of the RTP stack itself. 

Cheers,
Colin

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

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 01:42:16 +0200

Hi Colin,
Thanks, will update the document accordingly
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 12:07 PM
> To: IETF AVTCore WG; Roni Even
> Cc: Magnus Westerlund
> Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-04
> 
> Hi Roni,
> 
> Magnus and I reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-04 again, to resolve
> our conflicting comments. We have the following proposed changes.
>

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:40:42 +0900

Thanks - the update looks good to me.
Colin

> On 15 Nov 2016, at 08:42, Roni Even <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Colin,
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

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