"While we considered possible solutions that would have encrypted more of the RTP header (e.g., the number of CSRCs), we felt the inability to parse the resultant packets with current tools, as well as additional complexity incurred, outweighed the slight improvement in confidentiality"
if I have understood it correctly, I would suggest to rewrite this to something like -
While considering the possible solutions that would have encrypted more of the RTP header (e.g., the number of CSRCs), lack of support on current tools was inevitable and the additional complexity outweighed the slight improvement in confidentiality by fixing previous solutions. Hence, new approach was needed to solve the described problem in section 1.1.
"While we considered possible solutions that would have encrypted more of the RTP header (e.g., the number of CSRCs), we felt the inability to parse the resultant packets with current tools, as well as additional complexity incurred, outweighed the slight improvement in confidentiality"
if I have understood it correctly, I would suggest to rewrite this to something like -
While considering the possible solutions that would have encrypted more of the RTP header (e.g., the number of CSRCs), lack of support on current tools was inevitable and the additional complexity outweighed the slight improvement in confidentiality by fixing previous solutions. Hence, new approach was needed to solve the described problem in section 1.1.