Re: [AVT] alignment of layers issue

["Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv at gmail.com>]

Ross,
I want to believe that this is not the case. At least for video codec you
need RTCP for other reasons as defined in RTCP feedback and the extensions
in the ccm draft.
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: avt-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ross
Finlayson
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:56 AM
To: avt at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] alignment of layers issue

At 2:53 PM -0600 11/18/08, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>  > Anyway, let us assume for the time being, we can make this work with a
>>  relatively complex implementation in the sender as well as in the
receiver.
>>
>
>This is not complex, it is standard RTCP that you anyway need to
>implement

It seems to me that there's "an elephant in the room" here.  I can't 
help but feel that many (though not all) of the people who are 
opposing adopting the standard RTCP SR-based solution are really 
doing so because they don't want to implement RTCP.  I.e., they want 
to get away with implementing only a restricted version of RTP that 
works just for one particular layered video codec (and perhaps also 
one particular audio codec for which they would also align 
timestamps), without RTCP at all.

If this is really true, then it would be useful if people would come 
clean about this, so that we can address, or put to rest, whatever 
fears/concerns they may have about implementing RTCP.

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

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