Re: [AVT] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-smundra-avt-rtp-red-non-audio-00.txt

[Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>]

Hi,

On 20 Jul 2004, at 08:59, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Mundra, Satish wrote:
> > Please review and comment on 
> > draft-smundra-avt-rtp-red-non-audio-00.txt which has been made 
> > available as Internet Draft.
>
> I have a few comments about this draft.
>
> 1. The motivation for this payload format. As I understand you like to 
> have a redundancy payload format customized for applications that has 
> small packets and is only dependent on the RTP sequence number. In 
> other words T140 or RFC 2833. As both are already specified and I 
> would assume certain amount of deployment with the current version of 
> RED, such a change seems unlikely do be desired. It only results in 
> having two mechanisms to implement.
>
> There are also other alternatives to provide redundancy. Both RFC 
> 2733, and the RTP retransmission format can also be used to provide 
> redundancy. However they are not capable of multiplexing multiple 
> payloads together, thus maybe not the most suitable for small 
> payloads.
>
> However it is questionable if the motivation is sufficient for the 
> work.

The draft provides a cleaner solution than RFC 2198 for some 
applications, although it is not backwards compatible with the use of 
RFC 2198.  I don't see any problem with proceeding with it, provided 
there is interest: there is no need for older applications to change, 
and it may help in the design of new systems.

> 2. Updating the MIME type: I don't think updating the existing MIME 
> type with a parameter, for this use case is any good. I think simply 
> providing a new MIME type for a variant is a better choice with less 
> backwards compatibility issues. Also please use the MIME template when 
> writing registrations.

Agreed.

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


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