Talk:RTP Control Protocol

Computing: Networking Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Bad Expansion of Initialism

In the version of 09:06, 16 October 2007, this article gave the expansion of RTCP as

RTP Control Protocol

That expansion matches the expansion that RFC 3550 gives.

At 09:09, 16 October 2007, an anonymous editor changed the expansion of RTCP to

Real-time Transport Control Protocol

I have a few problems with that change

The recursive expansion of 'RTP Control Protocol' is 'Real-Time Transport Protocol Control Protocol'. The capitalization is debatable, but the words are not.
'Real-Time Transport Protocol Control Protocol' sounds strange because in the expansion you repeat 'Protocol'. And in the initialism you leave out the initial 'P' of the 1st 'Protocol'. But the strange expansion correctly describes what RTCP controls. RTCP controls another protocol -- RTP.
If you have a problem with RFC 3550, the way to fix that is with a superseding RFC. It is the job of Wikipedia editors to use the terminology in the RFC, not to change the terminology in the RFC. No matter how bad the terminology in the RFC is.

I propose reverting the expansion of RTCP to

RTP Control Protocol

as it is in RFC 3550. And make the 'RTP' part a link to the RTP page.

TT 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We should stick to the RFC, so I think you may feel free to revert the change. Mange01 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QoS

Needs more info how it relates to QoS; On the RTP page, it says RTP is not used for QoS, but RSVP is for SIP and H.323... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.134.149 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low or high compression codec?

"An application may use this information to increase the quality of service perhaps by limiting flow, or maybe using a low compression codec instead of a high compression codec."

IANAE, but one could interpret this paragraph and the preceding one as saying that if que quality of the link is bad, one solution is to use a low compression code. But a low compression code means more traffic, not less. Should't it be the inverse, that is, "high [...] instead of a low [...]"?--200.54.125.100 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]