Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-hdrext-01.txt

[Randell Jesup <rjesup at wgate.com>]

Dave Singer <singer at apple.com> writes:
>Also, the given design attempts to be space-efficient (not individually
>long-aligned) for small extensions; you can say something potentially
>useful in two bytes.  Indeed, I am a little surprised that no-one has
>queried using the size to represent an extension of 1-16 bytes; is 0-15
>more useful?  A 0-byte extensions is essentially a way of doing a "packet
>tag", just marking some packets.
>
>So, two reasons:  more open, and more compact for small extensions.

        I very much like the idea of compact extensions.  (I never
understood the reasoning for padding everything out to 32-bit boundaries in
a _network_ protocol.  It can make sense (at times) internally for memory
alignment on 32-bit CPUs/memory systems, and to save 2 bits in lengths.
But that doesn't sound like a valid reason for RTP as a protocol.)

-- 
Randell Jesup, Worldgate (developers of the Ojo videophone), ex-Amiga OS team
rjesup at wgate.com
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons
provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad."
		- James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)


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