Subject: [AVT] Further comments on draft-ietf-avt-mib-rtp-bis-00

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:05:43 +0100

Hi,

I do have some other more detail comments on the draft:

1. The address format in the draft. Currently it is restricted to IP. Is 
this something the WG is fine with? RTP is very lower layer transport 
agnostic. Thus it would be good to at least have a address type field 
that can go beyond IP. Also the data entry would be good to be more 
flexible.

2. I also find a few places where the MIB description text makes 
references to "calls". I don't find that appropriate. In most cases it 
should discuss sessions I think.

3. What is the definition for active sessions?

4. rtpSessionSessionIdentifier: I don't see how a SSRC can be a unique 
identifier for a session. However this do tie in with the other mail and 
the general question of how to identify sessions.

5. rtpSessionMaxNumEntries: What type of entries is it providing a limit 
to?

6. I also question the deletion of the sender and receiver entries when 
they timeout. Isn't this information that one maybe want to retrieve 
after that a particular session participant has left the session.

7. rtpRcvrPT: I don't see how the payload type belong in the 
receiverEntry. It is not included in the RTCP RR, thus not know that way 
by the writer of the record.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

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