On 30 Oct 2014, at 13:39, Vijay K. Gurbani <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
I looked at your suggestion, but I would prefer to keep the two explicit
statements, because they stress this point in that particular scenario.
Based on other comments, this text might change anyway.
Best regards
Michael
>
> 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
