Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-09.txt

[Randell Jesup <rjesup at wgate.com>]

Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org> writes:

>On 26 Jul 2007, at 05:26, Randell Jesup wrote:
>> Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org> writes:
>>> This is why I'm suggesting you use the RTP timestamp rate: it avoids
>>> all these issues with multiple clocks.
>>
>> But can't the RTP timestamp rate change in mid-stream?
>
>Sure, but you have to deal with that whether or not you implement TFRC.

Yeah, but I think it would throw a major additional wrench into TFRC
calculations - and no one would test it (nor test packet loss at the
transition point), and you'd have problems in practice.

>Thinking about this issue some more, though, it might be better to  use
>units of 1/65536 seconds, to match the LSR and DLSR fields in  RTCP RR
>packets?

Sure, that might make sense - depending on how many bits you have to play
with, and the range of times you need to deal with.

-- 
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