Hi Cullen,
We, the authors, also decided to stay with DDP, since this name is there
for quite a long time and people may have already implemented it.
Furthermore, there may be not relation between decoding dependency
grouping and direct data placement, so that we do not see any problems
of collision in signaling.
Best regards,
Thomas
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:24 , Thomas Schierl wrote:
3. DDP and RDMA in the RFC4296 sense are about as far away
technically than it gets from SDP signaling. Confusion is, in our
opinion, unlikely. Can we ask the MMUSIC chairs and Cullen for
guidance here?
I'm pretty ambivalent on this. If we changed DDP to something like
DDPG for "decoding dependency group" would that introduce confusion to
the MMUSIC world? If moving away from DDP is going to cause confusing
to MMUSIC implementors, I'd probably rather not do it. If we can
easily switch to something that does not conflict, well less acronym
conflict is better but these are pretty far apart.
Authors and Chairs, is there something obvious to change DDP to and
can we make that change without causing confusion? if not, I'e like to
leave as is.
Thanks, Cullen
--
Thomas Schierl
--------------
Fraunhofer HHI
----
Visit us at
CeBIT 2009 / March 3-8 / Hannover, Germany / Hall 9, Booth B36 and A30
http://www.cebit.de
embedded world 2009 / March 3-5 / Nuremberg, Germany / Hall 11, Booth 11-101
http://www.embedded-world.de
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
