Re: [AVT] Sound level indicators

[Emil Ivov <emcho at sip-communicator.org>]

Jonathan Lennox wrote:
> I also agree that standardizing encoding is a good idea -- this is why
> my draft copies its definition and encoding of audio level from the
> Comfort Noise payload. 

Sounds reasonable. We were thinking of using relative non-normalized
sound levels to avoid conversion but using the comfort noise level
evaluation mechanism is also an option (especially in the use case you
describe).

> I'd be open to combining the two drafts, if the WG agrees that both
> issues are worth working on, and feels that having a single document
> addressing multiple issues is better than having two documents that
> inevitably repeat or cross-reference information.

Agreed.

> (Technically, I believe that having separate extension headers for "ssrc
> level" and "csrc levels" is a good idea, 

I guess this depends on what you mean by "separate extension headers".

If it's only a matter of defining an extra URN then that's probably
alright. One could still wonder why we needed to explicitly
differentiate them though since they would hardly ever travel together.

I definitely think, however, that header syntax should be identical in
both cases.

> but that's orthogonal to the issue of document structure.)

Agreed again.

Cheers
Emil