Re: [AVT] update of G.729EV RTP payload format

[Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>]

Hi,

On 27 Feb 2006, at 17:26, SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-TECH-LAN wrote:
...
> > Section 6.1 ("maxbitrate" optional parameter) is confusing,
> > since its name suggests that it represents a bit rate (i.e.
> > in bits-per-second) but the parameter defines the largest FT
> > value that might be chosen.
> > Is it possible to rename the parameter somehow?
>
> Maybe it could be a good idea to express the media type parameters  
> "maxbitrate" and "mbs" in bits-per-second. Actually both are rates.
> It would improve readability of the codec negotiation.
> What do you think ?

Perhaps, although that requires specification of what to do if the  
chosen value isn't a possible bit rate.

> > Section 6.1 ("mbs" optional parameter) states "The maximum
> > MBS value is implied if this parameter is omitted". Does this
> > mean the maximum bit rate (i.e. MBS value 11) or the maximum
> > numeric MBS (i.e. MBS value 15, "NO_MBS")?
>
> You are right this is ambiguous. Actually if "mbs" is omitted, it  
> is set to "maxbitrate", which is 11=32kbps if "maxbitrate" is  
> omitted...
> Need to rephrase.

Okay, thanks.

> > Section 6.1 ("maxptime" optional parameter) can be updated to
> > reference sdp-new?
>
> Does that mean I should also replace the [5] SDP (RFC 2327)  
> reference? It is in the normative references section so it may  
> delay the payload format?

Yes, you should replace both. It shouldn't delay the draft, since sdp- 
new is ahead of this in the RFC Editor queue.

> By the way, for media type reg, I put RFC 3555 and 4288 in the  
> informative references section, is it appropriate?

No, they need to be normative, I think.

Cheers,
Colin

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