> Hi, > > I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two > arguments that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from > draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the documents that will follow it. I > understand that it's a non-obvious question whether RTP should be > considered a transport protocol or not, and I don't want to take a side in > this or step on anyone's toes here - these are more practical, pragmatic > considerations, and I'd just like to see how people react. If folks go > crazy in response to this I won't keep arguing, but I'd be happy if I'd > see some agreement: > > Argument #1: RTP implementations need to be tied closer to the application > than the implementation of transport such as TCP, DCCP, SCTP. There is > usually a very tight interaction with the codec and RTP - a reaction to > one specific incoming RTCP message, for instance. So I'd rather see a > future TAPS system being *used* by RTP instead of *providing* RTP > functionality. > I think the same.
> Argument #2: TAPS has a non-negligible risk of ending up as an academic > exercise. I understand that but I don't want that - I think we should do > our best to keep TAPS "real". If that is our goal, including the world's > largest protocol isn't perhaps ideal... I think it should be in our > interest to try to keep the list in draft-ietf-taps-transports-04.txt > reasonably contained. > I'd prefer the document not to ignore RTP - but to say enough, so that people can read further should this wish. If the above is correct, then I think perhaps this document can cover this in the introduction, along with a mention perhaps of other framing or content-oriented protocols that can use transports. > Cheers, > Michael > Gorry > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps > _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
