Rest of comments look fine, I think.... On 10/28/2011 06:18 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
8. When receiving a [ insert new AVPF message here ], the sender shall attempt to comply with the overall bandwidth requirements by adjusting parameters it can control, such as codec bitrates and modes, and how much data is sent on the data channels.
Suggest "shall" -> "may".
For any CC algorithm to work, it really *should* try. It may not be able to comply, the algorithm may include some smoothing, and the sender may have additional information, so it's not MUST, but wouldn't MAY be too weak?
I was thinking that in some applications over some codecs, it may simply drop packets, layers or channels, without adjusting any parameters. Suggest that we insert ", for instance" in front of "by adjusting" - so that it becomes "the sender shall attempt to comply with the overall bandwidth requirements, for instance by adjusting parameters it can control". 8. When receiving a [ insert new AVPF message here ], the sender shall attempt to comply with the overall bandwidth requirements, for instance by adjusting parameters it can control, such as codec bitrates and modes, and how much data is sent on the data channels. This should be OK for the first cut - long term, we have to discuss what "comply" means ... whether a leaky bucket algorithm (which would permit some over-bandwidth burstiness) is an appropriate model, and if so, how deep the bucket should be, or whether that's a tunable parameter that can be freely set by the implementation within some boundaries, or...... for now, let's get a simple statement that is understandable to the main list.