Transmission Time Offsets in RTP Streams
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset-07
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-10-08)
Unknown
I would note that the recommended RTCP packet type 195 is not from the first choice range established by the approval of draft-ietf-rtp-and-rtcp-mux some time ago. The value is from the second range and not a problematic one.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-10-07)
Unknown
(1) I was amused when I read the security considerations. It *is* hard to see how informative offsets have any security implications, but I appreciate the effort! I would recommend adding a sentence pointing to RFC 3550 for the core security considerations. (2) FYI, [hdrext] is now RFC 5285. Perhaps that should be added to the RFC Editor Note.