Re: SDPCapNeg-06 Issue #1: Bandwidth parameter negotiation in core or not [Was Re: [MMUSIC] SDP CAP Neg example using it for media capabilities]

[Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com>]

Flemming Andreasen skrev:
> 
> Looking at transport protocol negotation only, which may imply different
> overheads and hence different bandwidth requirements, Magnus' example
> uses the Transport Independent bandwidth modifier [RFC3890] and that by
> itself provides a solution to different bandwidth requirements when
> negotiating different transport protocols (if supported of course).

No, it doesn't. Because in accordance with the TIAS parameter semantics
if one like to indicate that a session using retransmission will have a
higher bit-rate to allow for the retransmission in addition to the
primary transmission then the TIAS values for the transport will be
differnt. However, you are correct that it solves the issue between
considering RTP/UDP and RTP/TCP bandwidth differencies.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic