[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MMUSIC] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-01.txt
Dear Stefan,
Thanks for the feedback. See my comments inline.
On Mar 26, 2008 05:44 PM, Stefan Döhla <stefan.doehla at iis.fraunhofer.de>
wrote:
>The payload type values in the examples are probably not allowed. In
>RTP
>there are no PTs >127 - and all the dynamic ones are in the range
>96-127. This applies to both examples in section 6.4. For the examples
>I
>think you should restrict to 96-127 for RTP.
Sure, I already got this feedback at the Vancouver meeting. It just did
not make it into the draft.
>
>Also, a better term could be used instead of "payload type" (I think I
>concure with Roni here), e.g "media format description" as used in
>RFC4566 on page 24 together with the mid attribute. However, the label
>attribute doesn't seem to be better than the mid attribute here,
>because
>label attributes are (as far as I understood this) on the same level as
>the mid attributes and apply to all media format descriptions (=payload
>types) inside a media stream.
I agree, fmt is more correct. And, I guess lables aren't on the table
anymore.
Thomas
----
Visit us at
MMC 2008 / Berlin, Germany / 2 - 3 April 2008 / Hoersaal E009
http://mmc.hhi.de/
Photonics Europe / Strasbourg, France / 7-11 April 2008 / Booth 321
http://spie.org/photonics-europe.xml
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic