Subject: [AVT] comments draft-perkins-avt-rapid-rtp-sync-02

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:32:42 +0200

Hi,

I reviewed the draft and in general find it good.

I have comments

1.       You have in the draft RTP flows and RTP Sessions, see for example
first sentence of 4.3. What is the difference. 

2.       The last sentence in 3.1 is not very clear.

3.       Section 4.2 starts with Normative text that is relevant to SVC, yet
in SVC there is no such normative text.

4.       The third paragraph in 4.2 (After the first note) repeats text from
3.2

5.       Section 4.3 tries to be general and not SVC specific but refers to
access unit "If a packet must be inserted for satisfying the above rule, the
NTP timestamp of such an inserted packet MUST be set equal to the NTP
timestamp of a packet of the access unit present in any lower RTP flow and
the lowest RTP flow. "

6.       The informative example in 4.3  does not have specifics of the
usage of the header extension, so what is the purpose of the example.

7.       In the security consideration there is no discussion on the header
extension. Note that according to RFC 3711 and as mentioned in RFC 5285 the
header extension is not part of the encrypted portion and it carries
according to this draft the NTP time stamp that is also carried in the RTCP
encrypted portion.

8.       In the IANA section you also need to register the header extension

Roni Even