Subject: Re: [AVT] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-avt-avpf-ccm-03.

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:59:01 +0100

Even, Roni skrev:
> 
> 24. in section 4.2.1.1 " If the value set by a TMMBR message is expected 
> to be permanent the TMMBR setting party is RECOMMENDED to renegotiate 
> the session parameters to reflect that using the setup signalling." 
> Suggest call signaling and not setup
> 

Hi,

I would like to comment this. Call signalling is an example of setup 
signalling. The reason I don't want to use "call" and why I reverted 
Stephan's change during editing of version 4 is that TMMBR may be used 
in RTP sessions that aren't classical calls. Like lectures, TV-like 
distribution where the session isn't called by the user a call.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

---

From: "Even, Roni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:05:15 +0200

Magnus,
That make sense, maybe "session setup signaling"
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:59 AM
> To: Even, Roni
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [AVT] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-avt-avpf-ccm-03.
> 
> Even, Roni skrev:
> >

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:02:11 +0100

> That make sense, maybe "session setup signaling"

Yes, that is what I used in some places in the latest version. I will 
try to remember to check for consistency when we go over the draft in 
the next pass. This is quite related to the issue with establishing a 
session maximum value which will need to be addressed in the next 
version anyway.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund