[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[AVT] Lack of clarity in RFC 3550 on packet loss

To: casner at acm.org, avt at ietf.org
Subject: [AVT] Lack of clarity in RFC 3550 on packet loss
From: Rajesh Kumar <rkumar at cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:07:19 -0700
Cc:
In-reply-to: <40qjma$2dq7fd@sj-inbound-e.cisco.com>
List-help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <40qjma$2dq7fd@sj-inbound-e.cisco.com>
Reply-to: rkumar at cisco.com
Sender: avt-bounces at ietf.org
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

Steve,

RFC 3550 does not explicitly say that the "fraction lost" and the "cumulative number of packets lost" fields in RTCP sender reports and receiver reports refer to packet losses after the effects of RFC 2198 redundancy and RFC 2733 FEC have been taken into account. However, this is a reasonable assumption to make, and is in sync with RFC 3611, which does make such an assertion.

Is this what the intent of RFC 3550 was?

Thanks,

Rajesh

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [AVT] Lack of clarity in RFC 3550 on packet loss
  - From: Colin Perkins

Prev by Date: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ac3-05.txt
Next by Date: Re: [AVT] Lack of clarity in RFC 3550 on packet loss
Previous by thread: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ac3-05.txt
Next by thread: Re: [AVT] Lack of clarity in RFC 3550 on packet loss
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread