Re: [AVTCORE] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.avt |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <HE1PR0701MB269744B579C01D0EC09C424E95610@HE1PR0701MB2697.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> |
Hi James, Thanks for the many updates in -04. However, I think there are a couple of adjustments still needed. Section 8: When a document spans more than one RTP packet, the entire document is obtained by concatenating User Data Words from each contributing packet in ascending order of Sequence Number. I think this can be further clarified by adding "consecutive" When a document spans more than one RTP packet, the entire document is obtained by concatenating User Data Words from each consecutive contributing packet in ascending order of Sequence Number. What I think is unclear is what is considered contributing packets. It is quite common that one determine fragments based on timestamp and that may be assumed by some. I don't know if that is a dangerous assumption here. To my understanding one can determine the set of fragments by looking at the marker bit for the packets. From first 0 after a 1, until and including the packet with a m=1. If that is your intention for how one should do it, so that it works for multiple documents to share epoch and thus RTP timestamp documents I think this needs to be made explicit. In section 11.1 it says: In these situations, it is RECOMMENDED that streams use the same Synchronization Source and Clock Rate as the related media. You do need to insert "Time" before Synchronization source to not be misinterpret to mean SSRC. Or maybe better is to say "clock source". Cheers Magnus Westerlund _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
smime.p7s
(application/pkcs7-signature, 6.2 KB) - not displayed