|
Hi, I think that the current draft does not give a description of a
system that works since there is no text explaining how the RS knows the
unicast transport address on the RR to where to send the stream. If you mandate the use of RTP/RTCP mux it should say so otherwise
the RAMS-R should have an optional parameter that supplies this information and
a flag for using RTP/RTCP mux. Thanks Roni Even From:
avt-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bill Ver
Steeg (versteb) There
is a new draft of the "Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions
(RAMS)" draft available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-03.txt We
have incorporated the changes from the technical breakout session in San
Francisco. The major changes in this version of the draft include 1-
Changing the document title to avoid confusion with other ongoing
"synchronization" drafts 2-
changing the message names to reflect the title change 3-
clarification of the RTCP message semantics, including changes to
the "Request" and "Inform" messages 4-
additional description/motivation for the various message flows has been added 5-
RTP/RTCP muxing has been added We
hope to make this a Working Group item, and will change the name of the draft
to avoid conflicts with other "synchronization" drafts at that time. Bill
VerSteeg |