[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AVT] Working group last call: JPEG-2000 payload format
Chuck Harrison skrev:
So is the drift of the proposal currently on the table as
follows?
- clockrate is considered as an SDP offer/answer parameter
- receiver MUST be capable of 90kHz
- sender MUST be capable of 90hKz
- sender SHOULD use 90kHz
- receiver SHOULD accept other clockrates
I think so. I would prefer that the last SHOULD to be a MAY. That makes
it 90kHz is normative to support, you may support others if you have
reasons for it. Without good reasons, I don't see the need to support
other clockrates, thus I am in favor of only a MAY.
Some guidance on possible alternate clockrates (e.g. a range
for the SHOULD) would make it more likely that interoperability
of independent implementations might occur. Any suggestions
for a range, Dave?
Yes, it is important to be clear about how one does negotiate this and
the impact this negotiation has.
I would also include a range for possible values. The lower limit I
would say is 1kHz. This due to that RTCP would starting to get into the
range where the actual useful measurement resolution is affected.
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt