Hi -02 version is posted. It reflects the resolution of the last call comments.
Thank you Aurelien > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Cullen Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : vendredi 26 septembre 2008 04:11 > À : Roni Even > Cc : Spencer Dawkins; SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-CORE-LAN; Gen Art; > Tom Taylor > Objet : Re: Late Last Call Gen-ART review of > draft-ietf-avt-rfc4749-dtx-update-01 > > > Let's follow Roni's advice on this. Please revise the draft > for the other changes and whatever text gets agreed to for > this one then resubmit the draft and send me an email and I > will put it on the agenda. > > Cullen > > On Sep 23, 2008, at 4:45 AM, Roni Even wrote: > > > 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:45 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
