Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-03.txt

[Matthew Romaine <Matthew.Romaine at jp.sony.com>]

Colin, thanks for your input; I've implemented the changes suggested  
as well as inlined a response to the auxiliary data issue.

On 2005/05/19, at 5:02, Colin Perkins wrote:

> On 18 May 2005, at 06:42, Matthew Romaine wrote:
> > An auxiliary data section has also been added.
>
> The auxiliary data section was introduced in the -02 revision. I  
> think the presence of this section is a mistake: it's better to  
> signal extensions in the signalling protocol, rather than allowing  
> undocumented auxiliary data. We don't typically allow such  
> undefined extension fields in RTP payload formats.

There have been a few requests from internal groups in Sony for this  
part of the payload, as a) it minimizes resources otherwise used  
externally (i.e. if another separate payload would be used), and b)  
some groups have not solidified the parameters they might be using.   
These groups are requesting a mechanism to send data with the payload  
rather than at, say, the SDP level.  Since there will be a level of  
generality somewhere in the pipeline, I modeled this section after  
the mpeg4 payload (RFC 3640) since that was an accepted method.

Is that enough of a justification?

- Matt


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