►
From YouTube: IETF95-AVTCORE-20160406-1400
Description
AVTCORE meeting session at IETF95
2016/04/06 1400
A
A
B
A
So
yes,
I'm
anyway,
I'm
Agnes
wrestler.
This
is
from
heaven.
So
the
note
wall
yeah,
you
shoulda,
seen
it
before.
If
you
haven't
read
it
the
supply,
this
meeting
group
now
the
agenda,
so
we
have
a
very
light
agenda
and
a
very
long
slot
on
this
is
a
long
slot,
but
we'll
spend
some
time
on
the
apt
core
working
group
status
and
then
we'll
have
one
technical
topic
around
the
general
mechanics
for
to
be
hair
extensions
update.
A
So,
as
you
see,
there's
plenty
of
space
if
somebody
has
something
to
bring
up
and
as
financing
for
the
next
meeting,
we're
planning
to
go
down
21
hours
lot.
So
if
you
actually
have
new
topics
or
anything
that
you
think
will
consume,
maybe
the
top
as
p.m.
sometime
and
please
bring
it
to
the
shares
attention
early
enough
when
it
comes
closer
to
meeting,
because
if
we
actually
need
upsize
our
request
so
depending
what's
happen,
we
might
even
need
to
cancel
the
meetings
in
the
future.
So
unless
we
have
something
made
actually
worth
discussing
so.
B
A
A
C
A
Yes,
thank
you
done
so
document
status.
Since
last
time
we
had
gotten
to
RFC,
published
the
RC
7667,
the
topology
update
and
the
SRT
pas
GCM
and
algorithm
so
good
that
you
get
something
published
if
currently
have
three
documents
in
the
obstetric.
You
it's
d
and
it's
actually
not
correct.
It's
all
three
documents
on
the
counter.
In
the
mistress
they
put
back
the
middle
document,
the
mall
RTP
multi-stream
into
mr.
F,
on
request
of
the
authors
and
that
also
informed
about
the
main
list.
Intention
here
is
really
at.
A
We
have
informational
references
to
the
optimization
document.
What
is
really
so
important,
I
think
to
have
an
RFC
reference
for
the
for
the
optimization
in
the
Indy
multi-stream
document,
so
we
holding
it
off
the
publication
until
we
have
yet
optimizations
also
can
be
published
and
when
you're
holding
off
that
you
could
as
well
hold
off
the
multimedia
octopus
session
also
gets
in
the
same
cluster.
A
A
D
About
our
yeah,
we
splitted
we
based
on
the
document,
was
in
the
ITF
last
call
and
based
on
the
comments
that
we
had,
we
split
the
document.
They
display
the
document
to
two
documents,
the
first
one
which
is
was
the
original
one.
When
is
draft
ITF
a
victorious
OTP
09
and
it
still
it's
still
during
the
isg
state
and
from
our
perspective,
it's
addressed
the
issue
about
making
it
an
informational,
RFC
and
taking
out
the
dtls
which,
with
the
SS,
which
required
standard
standard
action
in
order
to
register.
D
D
The
reason
it's
a
standard
trac
has
to
do
with
what
is
the
policy
for
registering
inside
the
s
nest
registry,
which
is
real
because
the
dtls
and
mikey
have
a
document
required
or
what's
called
specification
required
and
not
the
standard
document?
That's
why
it's
informational,
so
our
proposal
to
go
is
that
is
to
make
a
working
group
last
call
and
send
it
to
publication,
because
we
don't
see
any
reason
to
hold
it
and
we
don't
think
it's
a
major
issue.
A
So
let
me
have
some
documents:
that's
currently
working
documents,
that's
an
ongoing
work
on,
but
notice
not
otherwise
presented
agenda.
The
multiplexing
scheme
update
for
sotp
extension
for
the
TLS
went
through
working
last
call,
which
was
really
feed
TLS,
and
we
got
some
feedback
on
on
that
and
they
didn't
like
that.
We
restart
things
in
the
registry
and
the
other
aspect
they
actually
brought
up
is
that
they
in
the
work
for
detail
as
1.3.
A
The
what's
gonna,
be
in
the
first
bite
of
the
details.
Packets
is
not
most
likely
not
going
to
be
the
same
information.
That's
currently
in
the
one
bot
detail
s
1
point
2.
So
what
we're
saying
here
that
don't
apply
for
the
future,
what
60?
So
they
need
to
be
some
addressing.
We
were
waiting
tax
proposal,
store,
getting
texts
together
here
for
this
document
update
this
and
the
intention
by
d,
t
less
content
type
registries
to
probably
put
in
a
note
warning
about
this.
A
So
rather
than
doing
research
reservations
in
registries,
so
we
will
see
some
text
on
the
mailing
list
and
or
a
new
updated
draft,
hopefully
within
week
or
so,
but
the
dense.
It
was
on
the
authors,
but
in
the
near
time
the
multiple
40p
most
updated
and
it's
it
needs
reviews.
We
have
a
milestone
for
finish
eating
by
in
before,
and
this
is
an
experimental
sophistication,
but
would
be
good
to
get
some
ice
and
reviews
on
it.
A
A
Ya,
so
the
next
document
guidelines
for
using
multiplexing
features
ought
to
be
to
sport.
Multi
multiple
me,
the
streams.
Yes,
it's
expired
and
I'm
I'm
to
blame
at.
We
discussed
this
document
back
in
Yokohama
and
the
plan
was
to
actually
update
have
an
update
of
the
document
for
this
meeting.
Unfortunately,
I
I
got
the
first
task
of
doing
is
a
major
restructuring
of
it
and
slim
it
down
being
more
focused
and
I
fail
to
get
at
royal
rolling
so
well,
I.
A
A
E
A
Yeah,
that's
that's
very
good
point.
I
should
have
brought
it
up
before
it's
it's
yeah
the
plan
for
instruction
here,
and
it
might
be
if
if
people
have
needs
for
trying
to
use
a
kitty
with
item
IQ
or
secure
descriptions,
please
place
this
on
list
issues.
An
amazing
male
crystals
about
this,
because
otherwise
I
think.
If
nobody
has
interested
in
that
particular
problem,
we
can
kill
the
milestone
and
not
have
to
dress
it
for
a
moment.
A
A
So
our
milestones,
so
we
have
a
very
old
and
milestone
for
the
ekiti,
which
we
will
now
get
rid
of.
Hopefully,
anyway,
need
structure
relate
on
the
submit
multiplexing
scheme
updates,
but
hopefully
that's
actually
making
progress.
So
even
if
we're
late
at
least
we'll
see
me
getting
very
close
to
getting
Joycey
and
being
able
to
mark
this
milestone
stone,
we
mark
t
see
the
circuit
breakers.
We
marked
for
recently
but
its
diminutive
as
we
pack,
and
so
what
we
have
next
is
December.
A
F
A
A
D
Think
one
of
the
thing
we
bring
it
here
because
we
don't
have
a
payload
session
and
most
of
the
people
who
will
go
to
pay
no
they're
also
here.
So
it
was
not
it's
true
that
has
to
go
to
the
payload
list.
Also
this
message,
but
we
wanted
to
discuss
it
here,
because
we
have
the
opportunity
to
bring
him
forward.
A
Yeah,
so
yes,
so
we
have
three
so
Danny,
my
dear
3i
rod
tops
for
related
to
daymar
anymore
wide
with
paleo
foot
for
payload
formats.
They
all
kick.
They
all
been
discussed
and
come
from
the
3d
PPC
for
and
as
I
have
to
blame
it
that
we
have
been
having
them
languishing
they
almost
year
old.
But
basically
the
intention
here
is
I
mean
it.
A
A
3d
ppsc
for
is
the
kind
of
one
of
the
majors
specifications
having
one
of
the
major
sophistication
using
the
payload
format
and-
and
they
actually
have
quite
a
lot
of
experience
and
having
to
deal
with
the
actual
interpret
II
questions.
That's
been
raised
around
the
pedal
format,
so
the
feedback
here
is
is
really
clarifying.
If
you
stay
have
seen
him
had
to
discuss
among
themselves
so
and
they
do
fit
their
at
us
trying
to
verify.
A
D
A
Yeah
and
then
we
have
a
runner
otter
on
the
srp
specification,
and
this
is
an
example.
This
I
really
classify
so
tutorial.
I,
don't
think
it's
gonna
have
any
risk
causing
interoperability
issues.
Therefore,
I
do
recommend
it
from
being
held
for
document
update,
but
it's
it's
correct
insensitive
to
feel
this
is
not
correctly
aligned
so.
A
One
is
on
the
benefit
example.
Inconsistency
sew
and
this
is
cast
earlier
on
and
in
during
the
fall,
etc
and
and
the
consensus
on
the
main
list
was
actually
change,
the
ANF
towards
the
examples,
because
the
implementations
actually
do
that
rather
than
following
a
BF,
so
we're
being
pragmatic
here
and
actually
doing
what
what
the
examples
indicate
some
of
people
implemented
here.
It's
the
proposal
I
sent
some
requests
for
or
a
saying,
update.
Errata,
however,
needs
to
be
updated
before
it
gets
approved
or
verified.
C
A
I,
look
at
it
yeah
so
anyway,
I
mean
you
have
open
calls
on
this
last
thing.
If
it
comes
late
till
April,
so
you
have
you
have
time
to
get
back
from
the
ITF
wait
a
week.
So
you're
also
clarification
on
the
right
rate
on
the
fire.
It's
it's
very
much
Errol's.
They
wrote
a
minor,
but
it's
the
author
supports
to
verification
of
it
and
it's
it
is
making
spec
slightly
clearer.
So
so
that's
the
aratus
and
I
hopefully
will
get
rid
of
lower
the
errata
sexist
towards
a
VT
and
avg
Corp.
A
A
B
A
D
D
We
had
clarification
on
the
users
of
RTP
other
extension,
which
says
that
that
extension
may
be
important
for
interoperability.
An
intermediary
should
not
remove
them.
This
was
to
update.
That
was
a
comment
from
Jonathan
I
think
at
the
time,
and
we
updated
accordingly
and
we
added
text
to
the
Security
section
to
reference
RFC
6904,
which
is
also
was
not
there.
When
they
wrote
me
we're
50
285
came
to
gym
in
RFC,
and
that's
the
one
about
the
RTP
header
extension
encryption
and
that's
also
coming
from
Jonathan,
and
the
best
is
the
next
line.
D
So
the
next
step
the
calling
wrote
a
long
list
of
editorial
changes
most
guilty.
Tonal
changes
mostly
has
to
do
with
a
21-19
language
that
needs
to
be
fixed
in
the
document
we
there
is
also.
There
was
a
comment
about
that.
We
need
to
clarify
the
text
in
section
4.1,
addressing
implication
all
RTP
header
compression.
A
D
And
that
says
that's
a
problem
because
before
it
was
like
it
was
looked
like
it's
fixed,
but
because
Heather
extension
they
come
and
go
they're
not
go
to
the
some
of
them
just
appear
for
short
period
of
time.
It's
a
it
makes
it
big
difference
on
the
header
compression
and
we'll
have
a
new
version
after
the
meeting.
That
will
be
ready
for
last
call
with
all
the
changes
that
we
need
to
do
here.
Based
on
the
comments
of
our
as
you
can
see
the
word
reviews
of
the
document,
so
we
don't
have
it.
D
D
It
would
be
good
for
people
to
review
this
document
because
in
the
past,
via
the
other
extension,
were
not
used
very
much,
so
we
didn't
care
much
I
mean
so
the
document
may
have
some
other
issues.
So
if
people
now
people
who
are
writing
or
want
to
use
the
other
extension,
they
should
look
at
it,
because
this
is
the
framework
for
for
doing
Heather
extension
and
it
becomes
more
use
more
than
before.
B
F
Been
sort
of
vaguely
pondering-
and
this
actually
came
up
in
some
of
the
stuff
when
Ronnie
and
I
were
finishing,
our
RP
clue,
article
usage
documentary,
so
one
of
the
requirements
that
we
have
into
our
music
document
was
for
this
case,
where
I
guess
probably
clears
to
put
in
bundle
terms
if
you've
got
a
bundled
session
out
and
one
end
you
want
to
use
one
screen
for
two
different
Emily
M
lies
of
the
use
case
for
temporarily.
The
use
case
here
include
there
include
other
cases
is
where
you've
got
one.
F
You
know
one
stream,
that
is
the
static
view
of
Pacific
person,
another
view
that
it's
a
democratic
view
of
changing
activity
participant
dynamically.
During
the
time
when
you,
when
that
person
is
actually
speaking,
you
only
want
to
send
one
popular
media
rather
than
2,
I'm
actually
an
on
top.
You
know,
and
both
for
optimization
reasons-
and
also
it
occurred
to
me
later,
like
in
a
perk
type
scenario
where
you
can't
be
right.
F
Ssr
sees
may
not
be
able
to
send
two
copies
of
the
same
media,
so
my
thought
for
how
to
do
this
and
it's
obviously
it
doesn't
have
to
be
Navy
key
core
level
solution,
because
MIT
is
a
basic
document,
but
one
of
my
sleuth
talks
was
that
you
actually
have
away
in
ABT
to
define
that
a
particular
estes
item
has
to
value
simultaneously
and
syntactically.
That's
easy
in
in
RTC
key
and
the
header
extensions.
It's
actually
just
gets
into
an
area.
F
That's
not
well
defined
hearts
or
3550,
so
he
doesn't
negotiate
that
you
support
it.
But
I
was
wondering
whether
interested
in
this
both
the
use
case
of
multiple
of
the
you
know
sending
multiple
streams,
sending
one
copy
of
media
promotable
higher-level
purposes
and
to
what
do
they
think
that
doing?
That
is
a
you
know.
Multivalued
SS
items
is
the
right
solution.
People
agree
or
that
I
can
write
about.
People
think
this
would
be
a
huge
name
in
the
ass
to
rewrite
their
decoding
stacks
things
like
that
and
some
of
the
browser
people.
F
F
F
D
F
F
F
Know
I'm
in
a
sales
meeting
and
no
matter
who's
talking.
I
want
to
see
the
customers
reaction
or
you
know
I.
He
or
you
know
I'm
in
a
you
know,
confident
you
can
see
what
my
bosses
reaction
to
whatever
anybody's
say
so
I
can
agree
with
them
its
more
common
with
certain
cultures
than
others,
so
so
so
yeah
as
I'm
gonna.
Just
and
obviously
you
know
doing
it
as
a
you
know,
actually
changing
or
did
define
spending
for
identified
singing
RGB
is
not
the
only
solution,
no
included.