On 10/30/2014 07:15 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
Right. However, we wanted to make sure that there is no assumption
on the number of concurrent RTP flows. There are scenarios where
you will have no concurrent flow, scenarios where you have some,
but they are inactive, and also scenarios where you have concurrent
active RTP flows.
Michael: Thanks for the clarification.
In that case, perhaps a blanket statement outlining the above assumption
may suffice. Something like a sentence in the beginning of S3.1:
"The use cases below do not make any assumptions on the presence (or
absence) of SRTP media sessions, nor do they make any assumptions
on the state (active, inactive) of the SRTP sessions (if present)."
I will let you edit it as you see fit if you think it is worth adding
it in. If not, no worries.
Cheers,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
