Re: [AVT] Working group last call: JPEG-2000 payload format

On 26 Jun 2007, at 09:03, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Colin Perkins skrev:
>> Wrapping up, I believe the rough consensus is that the JPEG-2000  
>> draft should be updated to allow non-90kHz timestamp rates, as  
>> follows:
>> - Senders and receivers MUST support a 90kHz RTP timestamp rate,  
>> and MAY
>>   support other rates.
>> - Senders SHOULD use 90kHz timestamp where possible, and the draft  
>> needs to
>>   be updated to include strong guidance on choosing the timestamp  
>> rate, and
>>   the implications of using a rate other than 90kHz.
>> - The timestamp rate MUST be negotiated. The offer/answer  
>> considerations
>>   should explain how this is done.
>> - Senders that wish to use a non-90kHz rate SHOULD also offer the  
>> same stream
>>   using a 90kHz timestamp rate, with a different RTP payload type,  
>> e.g.:
>>     m=video 5004 RTP/AVP 98 99
>>     a=rtpmap:98 jpeg2000/90000
>>     a=rtpmap:99 jpeg2000/27000000
>>   allowing graceful fallback to 90kHz if the receiver doesn't  
>> support the high
>>   rate.
>> To check the consensus, please reply to this message by the end of  
>> this week, stating if you agree or disagree with this proposal,  
>> and giving your reasons. Please do this even if you believe you  
>> have already stated your preference.
>
> I am fine with this. However, I think the SDP example should switch  
> the priority order of the two payload formats to indicate that one  
> does like to use 27 MHz rather then 90k. So if including an example  
> with this, change the m= line to:
> m=video 5004 RTP/AVP 99 98

There seems to be consensus that more flexibility should be allowed  
in the choice of timestamp rate for the JPEG2000 payload format.   
Authors, could you please therefore submit an update reflecting this.

Thanks,
-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt