Re: [AVT] Progressing the RTP no-op payload format

[Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>]

On 1 Aug 2007, at 12:35, Colin Perkins wrote:
> The No-Op Payload Format for RTP (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-04.txt)  
> is technically complete. There has been, however, some discussion  
> on IPR relating to the draft: see http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/ 
> cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-04.txt and http://www1.ietf.org/ 
> mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg08380.html and followups.
>
> My understanding is that some claims on the patent application are  
> sufficiently broad that it will be difficult to develop a no-op  
> format which is not covered, should the patent be awarded. Given  
> this, and the IPR statement linked above, I'd like to ask the  
> working group two questions, so we can decide how to proceed with  
> the draft:
>
> 1) Do you believe an RTP no-op payload format is useful to  
> standardise, given the other keep alive mechanisms that now exist?
>
> 2) Do you believe the working group should proceed with this  
> particular draft?
>
> Response to the list preferred, but private responses accepted and  
> I'll summarise.

No response - is everybody on vacation, or is there no interest in  
pursuing this draft?

--
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/



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