Re: [AVT] Open issue on hdrext draft

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

On Oct 4, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Dave Singer wrote:

> At 13:43  +0200 4/10/07, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> > Imed.Bouazizi at nokia.com skrev:
> > >  Hi,
> > >
> > >  An RTP gateway (translator/mixer) that for some reason does not
> > >  receive/parse the SDP and is then not aware of the mapping  
> > > between the
> > >  RTP header extension and the ID will not be able to process the RTP
> > >  packet appropriately. This speaks for IETF agreed registration  
> > > (option
> > >  c).
> >
> > I think this is an irrelevant comment as any mixer or translator that
> > needs to understand the packet content anyway will require to be  
> > part of
> > the signalling context. Thus, I don't think there is a any benefit at
> > all with static mappings.
>
> I agree;  the general question "should RTP packets be  
> comprehensible without their signaling context" is outside the  
> scope of this discussion (though my sense is that the consensus  
> direction is "no", as shown, for example, by the fact that we no  
> longer approve of static payload type mappings).

Agree we should keep that questions as a sperate one (and I think we  
will easily get to an answer on it)

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