[xiph-rtp] Section 6, Congestion (Re: xiph-rtp Digest, Vol 3, Issue 9)

[Phil Kerr]

Hi Ramón,

The AVT said that this section had to be included in the draft. 

Is there a working implementation of bitrate peeling available?  I may 
of missed this but when the earlier drafts were written its status was a 
little uncertain.  Being able to play with this feature means it can be 
documented a lot clearer.

Regards

Phil


Ramón García wrote:

>Michael,
>
>The sending of scaling the sending of RR already takes into account
>the issue of scaling, as Phil Kerr has pointed out. In fact, this was
>the only important change in the RTP protocol from RFC 1889 to RFC
>3550.
>
>My only disagreement with that paragraph is that it is almost
>redundant. The RFC 3550 already says that clients SHOULD send RR (in
>section 6). Perhaps it is useful to put a sentence to emphasize the
>importance of these records for bitpeeling.
>
>I would write.
>
>"Although clients SHOULD send RR acording to RFC 3550, in the case of
>Vorbis packets these records are specially useful, because the Vorbis
>codec is designed to allow to change the bitrate easily essentially by
>removing some bytes at the end of a packet (bitpeeling). Therefore,
>this SHOULD should be stronger for Vorbis packets."
>
>Ramon
>_______________________________________________
>xiph-rtp mailing list
>xiph-rtp at xiph.org
>http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
>
>  
>