RTP Payload Format for 1-D Interleaved Parity Forward Error Correction (FEC)
draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-09
Yes
(Magnus Westerlund)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
No Record
(Cullen Jennings)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-01-11)
Unknown
After Magnus explained limitation of SDP regarding use of MIME types (the same top level MIME type has to be used for all media streams), I remove my DISCUSS about registration of text/1d-interleaved-parityfec. I wish SDP didn't have this limitation, but not much I can do about that anyway. Comments from ietf-types review (see <http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2009-December/002300.html>): >> o rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate. The rate SHALL be larger >> than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations. >> However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the >> rate of the protected source RTP stream. > > I am not sure from this what the syntax is, the text makes it sound > like rate="1001 Hz" might be it. Perhaps something like "The RTP time- > stamp (clock) rate in Hz. The rate SHALL be larger than 1000 ..." to > make it clearer. Alternatively "an integer ..." like some of the other > parameters say. Magnus replied: Yes, I would agree, because the value is just the integer "rate=1001".
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko 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
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-01-05)
Unknown
Would it make sense to explain the relationship of this document and 5109 (which obsoleted 2733 and 3009) in section 1.3?
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
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was No Objection)
No Record
No Record
()
Unknown