> On 3 May 2016, at 17:38, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ted, > > Thanks for expressing concerns ... I have an alternative suggestion: > >> I'm not so happy adding a description of where other media travels. > > Thinking out loud - what if we put the text to cover both interactive media usage of RTP and non-interactive media usage of something else into the Web RTC transports draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/)? > > That draft has the requisite broader scope, and it’s even not at the RFC Editor(!). I tend to think this is a better place. Non-interactive use of RTP would configure the mechanisms described in the rtp-usage draft differently to interactive use, and could use larger playout buffers, different DSCP values, etc., but I wouldn’t expect anything in the rtp-usage draft would be invalid for non-interactive use. -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/