alternate RTP profiles in SDP offer/answer

draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-09 mentions, in several places, how ports can
be overloaded and grouping can be used to specify RTP/SAVP and RTP/SAVPF in
the same offer.  The suggestions in draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-09 appear
to have the drawbacks that Flemming describes in section 3.1 and 3.5 of
draft-andreasen-mmusic-sdp-capability-negotiation-01.  It seems ill-advised
for AVT to publish a document encouraging use of mechanisms with these
drawbacks, unless MMUSIC agrees with this decision.

Considering that the upcoming IETF has two individual contributions in
MMUSIC on this topic, draft-andreasen-mmusic-sdp-capability-negotiation-01
and draft-kaplan-mmusic-best-effort-srtp-01, I don't believe there is
consensus within MMUSIC of which approach to take.

Can Joerggand Elisabetta discuss the technique proposed in
draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-09 at the upcoming MMUSIC meeting?  Or can we
perhaps have a joint presentation by all five authors so that MMUSIC can
make an informed decision on this important topic?

-d

> 	Title		: Extended Secure RTP Profile for 
>                   RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/SAVPF)
> 	Author(s)	: J. Ott, E. Carrara
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-09.txt
> 	Pages		: 17
> 	Date		: 2006-10-25
> 	
>    An RTP profile (SAVP) is defined for secure real-time
>    communications, and another profile (AVPF) is specified to provide
>    timely feedback from the receivers to a sender.  This memo defines
>    the combination of both profiles to enable secure RTP
>    communications with feedback.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-09.txt