Hi The current text in section 3 of my draft is mostly a copy/paste from RFC 3551. Are you suggesting to replace the whole block by a reference to RFC3551 section 4.1? With you comment that it is specific to G.729.1, I see no reason for an implementation to not set M=1 as expected. So I'm also OK to replace the SHOULD by a MUST in the current text. What option seems the best? Aurelien > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : mardi 23 septembre 2008 12:46 > À : 'Spencer Dawkins'; SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-CORE-LAN > Cc : fluffy@xxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; > tom.taylor@xxxxxxxxxx > Objet : RE: Late Last Call Gen-ART review of > draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01 > > Hi, > This text is just relevant to G.729.1 and not to other > codecs, so if you want to add a reason for the SHOULD it > should be based on RFC4749 implementations that would not > send M=1. Maybe the text should say that if DTX is offered > the sender must set the M bit according to RFC 3551. > Roni > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:45 PM > To: aurelien.sollaud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: fluffy@xxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; > ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx; tom.taylor@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Late Last Call Gen-ART review of > draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01 > > Hi, Aurelien, > > I think we're good on almost everything in your response. > > On the SHOULD/MUST below, it could very well be OK to have > this as SHOULD, but we've been asking for some indication of > reasons why SHOULDs might not be implemented - which could be > as simple as "there is a lot of deployed code that didn't > implement this, because it was a SHOULD in RFC 3551". > > If you leave this as SHOULD, you might want to say something > about the effect on receivers, since conformant sender > implementations aren't doing something that the spec assumed > they would be doing. In this case, you're saying that the > receiver can't look at the M-bit to identify the beginning of > a talkspurt, right? > > If you get any other feedback about SHOULD/MUST here, please > take that into account, of course... > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <aurelien.sollaud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>; > <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx>; <tom.taylor@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:20 AM > Subject: RE: Late Last Call Gen-ART review of > draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01 > > > Hi > > Thank you for the review. > Below some answers. > > Aurelien > > > 3. RTP Header Usage > > > > If DTX is used, the first packet of a talkspurt, that > is, the first > > packet after a silence period during which packets have not been > > transmitted contiguously, SHOULD be distinguished by > setting the M > > > > Spencer (review): why not MUST here? > > > > [AS] It is the wording from RFC 3551 (4.1). > It could be a MUST, but I saw no reason to be stronger than > the RTP spec. > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf