Re: RTX support (RFC 4588)

:)

Just one thing, I don't think it is a good idea to de-facto drop some 
requirement present in RTP-USAGE without explicitly stating it on the 
ORTC spec. Or even better, if we are not going to implement RTP-USAGE 
fully, we should write an endorsement document.

Best regards
Sergio

On 21/10/2014 21:18, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> Which now I see you have already done.
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com 
> <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     That's basically what ORTC did: it removed it from the spec by not
>     supporting it.
>
>     But if you are asking WebRTC group to remove it from the spec,
>     you'll need to email that list, not this one.
>
>     On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo
>     <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
>
>         2014-10-21 20:42 GMT+02:00 Sergio Garcia Murillo
>         <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com
>         <mailto:sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>>:
>         > For me it reads that a receiver shall implement both session and ssrc
>         > multiplexing. I agree that session multiplexing RTX is
>         useless in our
>         > context, so we should try to remove it from the spec.
>
>
>         If "session multiplexing RTX" means sending RTX packets on top of
>         another transport, then please remove that from the spec. That is
>         obviously useless.
>
>
>
>         --
>         Iñaki Baz Castillo
>         <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>
>
>