Re: [Fecframe] comments on draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-02.txt

["Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen at cisco.com>]

> > 	Page 6, in SSRC item: " It is RECOMMENDED that the DVB AL-FEC
> > protocol uses this mechanism for explicit SSRC signaling"
> > 			Doe it make sense to use the keyword "RECOMMEDED"
> > within the scope of IETF to guide the way of using SSRC for AL-FEC
> protocol
> > specified in DVB?
> 
> Using a deterministic SSRC=0 value is a special case, and is only acceptable
> by RTP if it is signaled explicitly.
> 
> Do you think we should say "MUST" or "SHOULD"?
> 
> [zou] It seems that I lead to a misunderstanding. Sorry. I'm asking whether
> it makes sense to stipulate in IETF the manner of a DVB standard by using
> the IETF keywords "RECOMMENDED" or "MUST" whatever. Maybe a lowercase form
> would be more proper.

That keyword applies to the ones who will use an IETF spec (interleaved-fec draft) to implement the al-fec protocol. So, I believe the use of the keyword(s) is appropriate.

-acbegen