On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> This announcement continues a disturbing trend of MicrosoftSCII
> appearing in what are supposed to be ASCII text documents.
I've observed this disturbing trend also. Triggered by the formatting
problems and non-US-ASCII characters of a different dr
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:
> There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting after the
> Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards
> (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic.
Yes, but (as others have suggested) moving the social
This is a Last Call comment on:
> o RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control
>
>
>This document is intended to replace RFC1890, currently a Proposed
>Standard.
It was recently discovered that RFC1890 contains an ambiguity that
remains in draft-ietf-avt-prof
[I made this same comment to the IETF plenary last night, but I waited
until the end of the program to get in line so that more significant
topics could go first. However, the result of that strategy was that
many people whom I think might have been interested to hear my comment
had already left
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The problem in the above described situation is that the
> *receiver* won't know this until it receives the packet after the gap,
> which could be a long time, well longer than the depth of the receiver's
> jitter buffer. So, when the receiver's jitt
The IETF Audio/Video Transport working group is seeking input from
any implementers of systems using the G.726 ADPCM audio encoding, in
particular any that use the MIME audio subtypes G726-16, G726-24,
G726-32, and G726-40 or the RTP static paylod type 2 for G726-32.
This notice is being sent to
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Ramana Divvi wrote:
> Hi
> In RFC2507( page : 22 ), it is given that compressed non-TCP headers
> contains one BYTE optional 'DATA' field.
> If any one knows , please tell me what is the main purpose of this one Byte
> DATA field.
See Section 3.3.1 of RFC 2508.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Ramana Divvi wrote:
> I have very basic doubt ( please don't laugh at me).
> How will we know , UDP is carrying RTP payload?.
> Is there any reserved port numbers for this case?
The UDP port numbers used with RTP are assigned dynamically. See
Section 7 of RFC 1890, which is b
At this moment, the Group/Convention Code that the Hilton San
Francisco has in its computer is "IET" rather than "IETF" as specified
on the IETF web page. I imagine that this may get fixed one way or
the other at some point.
-- Steve
After the last IETF meeting that was held in San Jose, a decree was
issued that no future meetings be held in Silicon Valley because of
unmanageably large attendance.
Harald's slides say that part of the problem we now face is reduced
revenue due to reduced attendance.
The answer seems obvious to
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
> As a lot of folks are coming to IETF57 early, it would be interesting to
> know when:
> - the WLAN network is estimated to be operational
> - when/whether it is possible to come to the conf. center
> (i.e. as it isn't in a hotel, is it open for IETF'ers
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Mehmet Demir wrote:
> I am looking for information and source code ( if any) of Real-Time
> Transport Protocol.
See www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/rtp/
-- Steve
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> IETF 62 inagurates a new streaming effort. Instead of covering only two
> rooms it is our intention to cover all eight. Instead of multicast video
> delivery, unicast audio-only. It is our hope that this new effort will
> provide more useful timely and acc
I think my experience with the wireless network was on the lower end
of the scale, perhaps in part due to the fact that I am using an older
laptop and Cisco 340 card with 802.11b only. I also run FreeBSD, so
that put me outside the norms. The wireless network worked great on
Saturday and most of
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:20:28 +0100
> From:Colin Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | RFC 3555 allows media types to be defined for transport only via RTP.
> | The majority of these registrati
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Robert Elz wrote:
> | Thus we need to be able to register RTP payload formats also in
> | text top-level type.
>
> Now, I'm lost. You just finished explaining how the RTP media types are
> all different from all other media types, because they necessarily need to
> retain
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > Date: 2005-07-05 11:18
> > From: Magnus Westerlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Magnus,
>
> Comments in-line:
>
> > [...] registered a large amount of names (>70) makes it very hard to see
> > that moving into separated registries will resolve any confusion.
I'll address just a few points:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > The audio/amr format contains identical media data, but the RTP
> > transport is defined to strip the initial magic number, which is
> > redundant with fields in the RTP protocol headers. The wide band
> > version o
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>...
> > Would you prefer longer meetings or shorter meetings?
> > Shorter meetings with more overlaps
> > No change
> > Longer meetings with fewer overlaps
>...
> It was meant to refer to the Friday morning controversy-
> s
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> The question was "Did you prefer the schedule change which had dinner
> following all sessions?" - it only shows when you click "Yes" on the "Did
> you attend Paris" question.
>
> Forms that change their content based on the answers given look
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Martians
>
> > "Martian" is nice expression.
>
> Weren't 'unusual' packets called 'Martians' at some early stage of Internet
> work? It certainly has history in the IETF as a term of art, I think that's
> it.
Yes, attributed to Dav
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> It seems to me that a group should be chartered with two sets of aims
>
> First to define a process for registering Internet audio CODECs for
> use on the Internet. This is slightly more complex than simply
> allocating an IANA code point as there
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Eliot Lear wrote:
I don't know about other companies, but mine has pretty tight travel
restrictions right now. I do not yet know if I will make the San
Francisco IETF or Stockholm. I suspect attendance at both will be
way down, but it's a hunch. If others are in the same p
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Susan Estrada wrote:
[snip]
> **Tuesday's Trivia**
>
> 1. One IETF attendee appeared on more than a
> dozen IETF name badges at the Stanford IETF -- name him or her.
> Milo Medin. I have no idea why.
This was a small revolt against pressure to wear a name badge during
the IE
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your
> tickets, you may find it faster / cheaper / better to fly to LAX or
> Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San Diego is ~ 200
> km, and LAX is basically on the San Diego
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
> In the past month or so I've run across two separate ISPs that are
> apparently polluting the DNS by returning A records in cases where the
> authoritative server would either return NXDOMAIN or no answers. The A
> records generally point to an HTTP serve
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 23:37 -0700 10/11/06, Stephen Casner wrote:
>
> >connect to 127.0.0.1 on the forwarded port number. I don't know why,
> >but Pine does a DNS lookup on 127.0.0.1. My problems arose when the
>
> Sounds like an applicatio
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
Does anyone know who this is or what it is about?
I don't know anything about Pingsta or its credibility. However, I am
currently reading a boot titled "Mavericks at Work" which talks, in
part, about open-source methods being applied to areas of business
28 matches
Mail list logo
