A Transport Independent Bandwidth Modifier for the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
RFC 3890

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin) Yes

(Jon Peterson) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

(Steven Bellovin) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2003-12-23)
No email
send info
There are many other things that can cause erroneous bandwidth estimates, including various forms of tunneling (GRE, IPsec, 6to4) and link-layer encapsulation -- should those be discussed here?

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ned Freed) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2003-12-16 for -)
No email
send info
I found section 3.5 on the potential interaction with DCCP somewhat lacking.  It's clear that using
DCCP for real time media will be different in a number of ways from the current flows over UDP,
and while it is good that the draft notes the likely difference in header size, it hardly seems
like the most important thing to note.  The use of different congestion control algorithms 
seems far more salient; see draft-phelan-dccp-media-00.txt for a description of how
TFRC's "contentment penalty" might apply when wrong guesses about available bandwidth 
come into play.

That section of the draft may well date back some time, of course, so it may be unfair to
ask for changes, and I certainly wouldn't block the draft for this.  But a review by the DCCP
folk might imrpove this a good bit; it also might show the need for a separate draft to discuss
the DCCP-specific interactions here.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection