Re: [AVT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-01.txt

[Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>]

Hi Ali,

On 22 Jun 2009, at 16:52, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
...
> > > > Section 7.3 and 7.4: It's not clear why extended RTP sequence  
> > > > numbers are used, since the top 16 bits are always zero.
> > >
> > > This is an open issue. We are trying to figure out how to support
> > > extended seqnums. We may need an early sender report to figure this
> > > out. Suggestions?
> >
> > Why do you need extended sequence numbers? It's not really a well-
> > defined concept across receivers in RTP.
>
> What about the really high-bitrate streams where seqnum wrapping  
> might be an issue during the course of unicast burst?

Can't you use modulo arithmetic as usual? I don't see any issues,  
unless the RAMS-T is sent more than a full sequence number cycle ahead  
of time.

Cheers,
Colin