Re: FLUTE revision

FDT instances on TOIs other than 0 are allowed by design. There is no requirement for a minimal FLUTE-only client to parse them (there is no assurance that the client would parse all to TOI0 FDT instances either). However, FDTi's must follow the FDT rules regardless of TOI they come on (e.g. They use the same "TOI namespace" for the FLUTE session).  This allows more flexible extensions built on top of FLUTE. (The mmusic IMG work, that spawned the first FDALC draft, was to use this multi-TOI feature).

Disclaimer: apologies if I misunderstood the question as I didn't parse the bit on "with an EXT_FDT LCT extension header containing the FDT Instance ID" as it would require re-digesting the spec before replying. If the question is limited to this case with that header, are there any positive or negative implications of explicitly allowing or disallowing this?

Cheers, Rod.


On 24 Jan 2011, at 21:42, "ext Luby, Michael" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Dear RMTers, We are in the process of revising FLUTE –11, to produce FLUTE –12, and it is clear at this point that the FLUTE version number will transition from 1 to 2.  One question that has arisen: Can an FDT instance have a TOI > 0 with an EXT_FDT LCT extension header containing the FDT Instance ID?  I think it is and should be restricted to TOI = 0 for carrying FDT instances, but there is some ambiguities in the text here and there that might be construed to suggest otherwise.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt