Hi All,
This is to announce the beginning of a working group last call for
draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt, "RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol (DCCP)" (available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt.
Last call will end on 18-May (two weeks from now rounded t
On 3 May 2007, at 14:34, Phelan, Tom wrote:
This is to announce the beginning of a working group last call for
draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt, "RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol (DCCP)" (available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt.
Thanks!
PS. Co
tion 8.1.2" is better?
Editorial Nits:
Title -- expand RTP.
Section 2: Rationale -- You say "Two approaches...", next paragraph is
"1)", but there's no "2)" (you say "The other approach is" instead).
Either "1)" and "2)", or "The f
ou say "Two approaches...", next paragraph is
"1)", but there's no "2)" (you say "The other approach is" instead).
Either "1)" and "2)", or "The first" and "The other" (or second), I
think.
Tom P.
-Original
On 2007-5-3, at 5:34, ext Phelan, Tom wrote:
This is to announce the beginning of a working group last call for
draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt, "RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol (DCCP)" (available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt.
I've done an early
[Inline; Jonathan - see ICE discussion below]
On 10 May 2007, at 18:36, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2007-5-3, at 5:34, ext Phelan, Tom wrote:
This is to announce the beginning of a working group last call for
draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt, "RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol (DCCP)" (avail
Hi,
Some WG last call comments:
A. Section 4.4:
In the case an RTP session bridges multiple DCCP connections it might be
worth noting that support of TMMBR from draft-ietf-avt-ccm could help. I
would suggest including an informative reference to it.
B. Section 5.2:
There need to be a stateme
On 11 May 2007, at 15:36, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
Some WG last call comments:
A. Section 4.4:
In the case an RTP session bridges multiple DCCP connections it
might be worth noting that support of TMMBR from draft-ietf-avt-ccm
could help. I would suggest including an informative reference to
On 2007-5-11, at 1:16, ext Colin Perkins wrote:
On 10 May 2007, at 18:36, Lars Eggert wrote:
Section 4.1., paragraph 2:
>A DCCP connection is opened when an end system joins an RTP
session,
>and it remains open for the duration of the session. To
ensure NAT
>bindings are kept op
On 11 May 2007, at 19:18, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2007-5-11, at 1:16, ext Colin Perkins wrote:
On 10 May 2007, at 18:36, Lars Eggert wrote:
Section 4.2., paragraph 1:
>The RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) is used in the standard
manner with
>DCCP. RTCP packets are grouped into compound pack
On 2007-5-11, at 11:08, ext Colin Perkins wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, all the RTP payload formats where this
could conceivably be an issue include application level
fragmentation. We've been aware of MTU issues for a long time in AVT.
Great, that addresses my comment then.
Lars
I am happy with the changes made and I have no other issues pertaining to
this draft :)
Arjuna
--
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/
Colin Perkins skrev:
> B. Section 5.2:
> There need to be a statement with normative reference on which
> formal language the SDP attribute definition is made in.
You mean a normative statement that the grammar in section 5.2 is
specified using ABNF as defined in RFC 4234?
Yes.
Cheer
On 2007-5-11, at 21:18, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2007-5-11, at 1:16, ext Colin Perkins wrote:
On 10 May 2007, at 18:36, Lars Eggert wrote:
15 seconds is pretty short. RFC4787 (NAT UDP Unicast Requirements)
says that "a NAT UDP mapping timer MUST NOT expire in less than
two
minutes". If we
On 5/16/07, Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Following up on this, since no NAT that I know of currently
translates DCCP, IMO there isn't a need to be as super-conservative
with the timeout as ICE needs to be for UDP. Something longer is
probably fine.
Lars
Linux has translated DCCP for
more like TCP in this regard than UDP, I'd
expect.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Ian McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:06 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: ext Colin Perkins; Phelan, Tom; DCCP mailing list; Jonathan
Rosenberg
Subject: Re: [dccp] WG Last Ca
On 2007-5-17, at 20:53, ext Phelan, Tom wrote:
Aren't the default NAT timeouts for UDP and TCP different -- UDP
has to
be short because there's no other way to tell that a connection is no
longer needed -- TCP can be longer because what the timeout is
doing is
just cleaning up broken connect
On 21 May 2007, at 10:03, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2007-5-17, at 20:53, ext Phelan, Tom wrote:
Aren't the default NAT timeouts for UDP and TCP different -- UDP
has to
be short because there's no other way to tell that a connection is no
longer needed -- TCP can be longer because what the timeout
On 3 May 2007, at 14:34, Phelan, Tom wrote:
This is to announce the beginning of a working group last call for
draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt, "RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol (DCCP)" (available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt.
Last call will end on
Colin,
Better late than never, perhaps; some comments on RTP over DCCP.
The draft is clear and really well written which is awesome.
A writing nit: it is generally better not to treat references as nouns;
rather than "RTP over TCP, as defined in [5]," say "RTP over TCP [5]".
But this is not t
Eddie,
On 11 Jun 2007, at 20:49, Eddie Kohler wrote:
Better late than never, perhaps; some comments on RTP over DCCP.
The draft is clear and really well written which is awesome.
Thanks!
In Section 5.2, you might point out that a given Service Code may
be specified in many ways. RTP proce
21 matches
Mail list logo
