ietf@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Last Call: draft-ietf-dccp-rtp (RTP and the DatagramCongestion Control P

Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-dccp-rtp (RTP and the DatagramCongestion Control Protocol (DCCP)) to Proposed Standard
From: "Dan Wing"
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:38:12 -0700
The draft is easy to read and understand.

1. Section 5.2, "Service Codes", refers to DCCP service codes.  Several are
defined in this specification (SC:RTPA, SC:RTPV, SC:RTPT, and SC:RTPO).  The
draft needs to say something about the relationship between the SDP media
type field (the "audio" and "video" of m=audio and m=video) and the DCCP
service code -- I expect they SHOULD match.  

2. I wonder if an optimization would be useful, where
"a=dccp-service-code:SC:RTPV" is assumed if the associated media type is
"video" (m=video); a similar optimization seems reasonable for audio (RTPA
is assumed when the media type is audio (m=audio)).

3. I believe the draft needs to define a value for its IANA-registered DCCP
service codes, as service codes appear to be sent in the DCCP packets
themselves according to RFC4340.

4. I'm surprised a=rtcp (RFC3605) lacked normative language in section 5.1.
I know for UDP this is widely considered best practice.  I'm not confident
that we should expect DCCP will be able to avoid that quagmire.  I suggest
adding something like:

   If RTCP is to be sent on a separate DCCP connection
   to RTP, the RTCP connection SHOULD use the next higher destination
   port number, unless an alternative DCCP port is signalled using the
   "a=rtcp:" attribute [13].  For improved interoperability, "a=rtcp" 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   SHOULD be used whenever an alternative DCCP port is used.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:31 PM
> To: MMUSIC WG
> Subject: [MMUSIC] Fwd: Last Call: draft-ietf-dccp-rtp (RTP 
> and the DatagramCongestion Control Protocol (DCCP)) to 
> Proposed Standard 
> 
> 
> I would like to point out this last call is happening - if you have  
> opinions on the SDP usage in this draft - do not reply to 
> this email.  
> Reply on the IETF list.
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
> > Date: June 6, 2007 7:18:36 AM PDT
> > To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: dccp@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-dccp-rtp (RTP and the Datagram  
> > Congestion  Control Protocol (DCCP)) to Proposed Standard
> > Reply-To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from the Datagram Congestion Control
> > Protocol WG (dccp) to consider the following document:
> >
> > - 'RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) '
> >    <draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, 
> and solicits
> > final comments on this action.  Please send substantive 
> comments to  
> > the
> > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2007-06-20. Exceptionally,
> > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either 
> case, please
> > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >
> > The file can be obtained via
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-06.txt
> >
> >
> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
> > command=view_id&dTag=15015&rfc_flag=0
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETF-Announce mailing list
> > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>