Minutes IETF104: avtcore
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
||Minutes IETF104: avtcore
AVTCORE Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance WG Meeting
Announcement: Barry taking over as responsible AD for WG from Ben
1. Note Well, Note Takers, Agenda Bashing - (Chairs)
Status of working group drafts:
[RFC Editor Queue]
draft-ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines-08 [AD Evaluation]
Ben will try to get it reviewed before he steps down
One clarification needed and then publish.
2. draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-02 - Colin
Re: RFC6679 relationship: Jonathan says, must not offer both, answer picks
Bundle Discussion from Hackathon, needs some expertise to verify, but
probably should send to all. Zahed volunteered to get such an expert.
Negotiation of feedback mechanisms - many feel answer selects one, but some
believe answers with more than one should be allowed. Noted that subsequent
offer may come from another entity so, send the list again, but don't
gratituitously change the answer. Someone should send text to Colin
Mo wants NACK text (if not ACK, NACK) CCFB does not imply a retransmission
request, NACK is required.
3. Payload status - Roni
flexible-fec has a problem, was discussed with authors, and will have more
discussionm in the evening.It may need a substantive change that could not
reasonably be done with an editors note. AD changeover affects this. Have
to see what comes out of the discussion.
Media types should also be registered in rtp-parameters but are not actually
syncronized.There are differences in policy between media-types and
rtp-parameters. Needs to be addressed. Possible that the rtp-parameter
registration is not necessary, but RTP experts need to be engaged if it is
to be used with RTP. Problem is how to do that. Possibly the "framing"
option was intended to be that, and isn't working. Barry and Colin to