Re: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-bw-05.txt question

[Aaron Colwell <acolwell@real.com>]

That makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarifications.

Aaron

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Stephen Casner wrote:

> Aaron,
>
> > In the case where b=RR is specified that would mean that no sender reports
> > or BYE packets could be sent. Is that allowed? In the A/V case the client
> > would not be able to sync the streams because it would never get their
> > CNAME. I suppose that is the server's fault for not specifying a value
> > for the sender reports. I guess this brings up another question. Does it
> > make sense for the RS value to be 0?
>
> We are talking here about a case where b=RR is specified to be > 5%,
> and b=RS is not specified, so RS would be taken to be zero.  However,
> your interpretation of the effect of RS=0 is incorrect.  First, both
> RS and RR apply to all RTCP packet types that a participant might
> send.  Second, as Magnus and I have been discussing on the list, the
> "1/4 rule" still applies when RS and/or RR are/is specified, except
> that we have corrected it to be the "RS/(RS+RR) rule".  If RS=0, that
> simply means that senders do not have any RTCP bandwidth dedicated to
> them, instead they share RTCP bandwith equally with all participants.
>
> I have clarified this in the draft now, during the final stages with
> the RFC editor.
>
>                                                         -- Steve
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt