> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:52 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review Team; Roni Even
> ([email protected]); [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-09
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> See below...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ray
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: maandag 10 juni 2013 16:35
> To: Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van
> Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review Team; Roni Even
> ([email protected]); [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-09
>
>
> Yes, we seem to get closer and closer, focus on one last issue (and much
> agreement deleted)
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:27 PM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review Team; Roni Even
> > ([email protected]); [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-09
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Please see inline. We seem to be converging:)
> >
> > Ray
>
> > > > 7. In Section 8:
> > > >
> > > > The timestamp is formatted based on the NTP
> > > > timestamp format as specified in [RFC5905]. If this field is
> > > empty,
> > > > then it SHALL be set to 0. This field MAY be left empty if
> > > > none
> > or
> > > > only one of the receivers reported on presentation timestamps.
> > > >
> > > > Why a MAY here? Especially for the case when none of the receivers
> > > > reported, what content can be set there but 0 ?
> > > >
> > > > [Ray: I believe it should be up to the implementation to decide
> > > > how it wants to handle the case of there being only one receiver
> > > > who reported on presentation timestamps].
> > > >
> > > [[DR]] OK, so the cases when none of the receivers reported and one
> > > receiver only reported should be dealt with differently. This needs
> > > to be clarified.
> > >
> > > [Ray] What exactly is the problem with the MAY here? IMO it doesn't
> > > create any interop issues: whatever is the reason for setting the
> > > value to 0, to the client the end result is the same: ignore it.
> > >
> >
> > [[DR]] In the case when none of the receivers reported we want to
> > avoid leaving some garbage in this field which could be interpreted
> > differently - don't we?
> >
> > [Ray] I think I see where we disagree. The paragraph says: "If this
> > field is empty, then it SHALL be set to 0. This field MAY be left
> > empty if none or only one of the receivers reported on presentation
> > timestamps". The way I read this is as: In the case the field is
> > declared empty (= contains NULL information), it SHALL be set to 0.
> > There can be different reasons for declaring the field empty/NULL, one
> > of those reasons is if none or only one receiver reported on
> > presentation timestamps. To me, the paragraph doesn't say that this is
> > the only possible reason, but it does specify very clearly that if you
> > decide the field should be empty, you SHALL set it to zero.
> >
> >
>
> [[DR]] But then, why do not you take out 'if none or' - because for the
> option of 'none' there is no alternative but the 'null' information, and
> the MAY does not make sense.
>
> [Ray] The fact that no receiver reported on the packet presentation
> timestamp does not necessarily mean that the MSAS does not want to
> indicate a proposed packet presentation timestamp. The absence of such
> reports just means that the proposed playout moment might not be
> realistic, or be supported by any receiver.
>
[[DR]] yes, but is the field set to anything but 0 in such cases?
Dan
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
