On 5 Nov 2006, at 19:44, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
Colin, I have just a few queries (mainly wording) about your I-D.
Best wishes,
Gorry
---
In Section 4.2, you don't define or reference SIP when first used:
" for example by performing a SIP re-invite..."
- Perhaps say: "Session Initiation Protocol, SIP [24]"
Will fix.
In Section 4.2 (towards the end) the I-D says:
" If there is
overlap between RTCP report packets and DCCP acknowledgements, an
application should use either RTCP feedback or DCCP
acknowledgements,
but not both "
- Should this be phrased as an RFC2119 format "SHOULD"?
- or is this really just a user-choice?
This is a user choice, I think. The right answer would likely depend
on the scope of the RTP session. I propose to make no change.
In Section 4.4:
" The use of a unicast DCCP connection does not imply
that the RTP session will have only two participants, and RTP end
systems must assume that multiple synchronisation sources may be
observed when using RTP over DCCP."
- Should this be phrased as an RFC2119 format "MUST"?
Possibly a SHOULD, since there may be out of band reasons why the
session is known to have only two participants.
In Section 5.1:
" The "DCCP" protocol identifier MUST NOT be
used to signal RTP sessions running over DCCP..."
- Not sure the meaning of this is clear, does it refer to the use
of the
string "DCCP" on its own?
Yes. It's the same as plain "UDP" is not used for RTP sessions.
Colin
