[AVT] Re: General extensible RTP header extension mechanism

[lazzaro <lazzaro at eecs.berkeley.edu>]

Dave Singer <singer at apple.com>
> It has been pointed out to me that we ought to discuss the question  
> -- do we *want* to make it easy to use the header extension  
> mechanism in RTP, in general, non-colliding and yet non-registering  
> ways?  This draft permits that; is it desirable?


I would say "yes".  I think we need to be
more cognizant of the fact that in addition
to the mature RTP areas (content-streaming,
VoIP), RTP is constantly being considered
as the base protocol for new application areas.

When folks are evaluating RTP for these sorts
of uses, and RTP doesn't meet their needs, they're
quite happy to break RTP in whatever way needed
to get the job done -- in a new application area,
there's nothing pre-existing to be compatible with.

I think a header extension increases the odds that
these sorts of "first-movers" define a new header
extension, rather than start modifying RTP or
RTCP itself to meet their needs ...

---
John Lazzaro
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu
---



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