Re: [AVT] draft-lakaniemi-avt-rtp-evbr-02 submitted

[<Ye-Kui.Wang at nokia.com>]

Hi Colin,

Thanks for your review and comments. 

>
>This generally looks fine. The use of an RTCP APP packet for 
>feedback has previously been flagged as a problem.
>

Yes. As it reads, the text existing in the draft serves for stating what
types of information may be needed. As at this meeting it was decided
(by you chairs) not to fully present this but have one slide in chairs'
update, I will start a discussion regarding this after this meeting. 

>I notice that section 3.6 defines a new mechanism for clock 
>synchronisation between sessions, claiming that 
>synchronisation based on the RTCP SR is too slow. It's not 
>clear that's true, especially if RTP/AVPF is used, but if it 
>is, then a general mechanism should be defined for rapid 
>synchronisation, not something payload format specific.
>

Agreed - as the same has been discussed in the SVC context. Will check
earlier dicussions and study whether anything in a general level is
needed. 

>Section 3.3 would benefit from a reference to RFC 5117, and 
>some discussion that the middleboxes considered are RTP 
>translators which must follow the rules in RFC 3550 section 7.
>

Thanks - will include in the next version. 

BR, YK
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt