On 10/30/2011 02:38 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
In Appendix A, minor error in the diagram for the extension. The second 0xBE should be 0xDE. 
   0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      0xBE     |      0xBE     |            length=1           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  ID   | len=2 |     send timestamp  (t_i)                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
For the REMB message, what do we expect the "SSRC of packet sender" header field to be set to? Is it just an arbitrary choice of any of the SSRCs used by the sender of the REMB?
Apparently one of Magnus' new drafts goes into that territory. I suspect Colin Perkins will have opinions too.

I think that for efficiency and general sanity, these need to be sent from one of the SSRCs and not from all of the SSRCs. I don't see any reason not to pick one at random.

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
The appendix carries the new extensions for signalling that we have discussed.
Hope you like them!

            Harald


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-congestion-01.txt
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:28:10 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: harald@alvestrand.no
CC: harald@alvestrand.no, holmer@google.com 


A new version of I-D, draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-congestion-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Harald Alvestrand and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-congestion
Revision:	 01
Title:		 A Google Congestion Control Algorithm for Real-Time Communication on the World Wide Web
Creation date:	 2011-10-29
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 19

Abstract:
   This document describes two methods of congestion control when using
   real-time communications on the World Wide Web (RTCWEB); one sender-
   based and one receiver-based.

   It is published to aid the discussion on mandatory-to-implement flow
   control for RTCWEB applications; initial discussion is expected in
   the RTCWEB WG&#39;s mailing list.


                                                                                  


The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
Rtp-congestion mailing list
Rtp-congestion@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion