[AVT] The storage format of EVRC/SMV vocoder (resent)

Dear Steve, Colin, AVT'ers,

The issue of the storage format of the EVRC and SMV vocoders in the MIME
registration has came up a while ago, and has caused the last minute
holding of the MIME registration for these two vocoders. The issue has
been discussed thoroughly here on the mailing list in the San Francisco
meeting. The reasons of each side of the argument have been well
presented. Now it may be time to make a decision?

Like many other issues in our AVT WG, the decision here is ultimately
relying on the judgment of our chairs. During the two and half years
that this draft is being developed in the AVT, the course of the draft
has benefited greatly from your guidance. After the open and ego-free
discuss that our chairs called upon at the meeting session, it may be
another good time to hear the opinions from the chairs and get some help
on the decision from their experience and vision on which one will
reflect the consensus of the AVT and would be most beneficial to the
whole Internet and telecom industry who will use our specification.

Below is the summary of the rationales for each of the choices:

  draft-ieft-avt-evrc-smv-03.txt    |    draft-garudadri-qcp-00.txt
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
(1) Mature specification, been      | (1) Brand new ID
    developed for 2.5 years in AVT  |
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
(2) Covers both EVRC and SMV        | (2) Only cover EVRC
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
(3) Referred to by 3GPP2(*) FFMS    | (3) 
    specifications                  |
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
(4) Implemented and used by many 3G | (4) Supported in Eudora
    telecom operators (e.g., SKT,   |
    KTF, LGT). The interoperability |
    has been tested among them.     |
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
(5) Simple and efficient design,    | (5)
    quick to implement              |
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
(6) Registration already in IANA,   | (6)
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
(7) Supported and developed by 7    | (7) Supported and developed by
    companies and universities      |     Qualcomm
    (including Qualcomm)            |
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
(8) No IP related to this format    | (8) IP situation unclear
------------------------------------+--------------------------------

(*) ERVC and SMV are both vocoders developed and defined in the
international consortium 3GPP2 (http://www.3gpp2.org) for the next
generation wireless network cdma2000.

Thank you very much.

Adam

PS. This is a resent of the previous message, which did not seem to go
through maybe because of the long cc list. If you think anyone is missed
out, please let me know. Thanks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Li [mailto:adamli@icsl.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:20 PM
> To: 'Ietf-Avt'
> Cc: 'casner@acm.org'; 'Scott Bradner'; 'Colin Perkins'; 'Allison
> Mankin'; 'randy@qualcomm.com'; 'mccap@lucent.com';
> 'mdturner@lucent.com'; 'smathai@lucent.com'; 'lioy@qualcomm.com';
> 'zeng@packetvideo.com'; 'sherwood@packetvideo.com';
> 'villa@icsl.ucla.edu'; 'yllee@samsung.com'; 'jeonghoon@samsung.com';
> 'tom.hiller@lucent.com'; 'David.Leon@nokia.com';
> 'nleung@qualcomm.com'; 'dgal@lucent.com'; 'ajayrajkumar@lucent.com';
> 'Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se'; 'magnus.westerlund@era-
> t.ericsson.se'; 'vbharga@cisco.com'; 'craig.greer@nokia.com';
> 'magda@qualcomm.com'; 'casner@acm.org'; 'ned.freed@mrochek.com';
> 'mankin@psg.com'; 'hgarudad@qualcomm.com'; 'csp@isi.edu';
> 'jlee@nextreaming.com'; 'sakazawa@kddilabs.jp'; 'tsgc@3gpp2.org'
> Subject: Issues for the file format for EVRC/SMV vocoder
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> The topic of the file format for EVRC/SMV vocoders hopefully will be
> discussed in this meeting at San Francisco. Below is a list of the
> issues that might be related to this topic. They are listed here as
> potential issues for you to consider before the discussion at the
> meeting.
> 
> (1) Technically differences. Is there much difference in efficiency
> and performance between the format in draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv and
> draft-garudadri-qcp? Are the differences simply on the file syntax?
> 
> (2) Completeness. For EVRC codec data, formats defined in both
> document can handle it. For SMV codec data, the format defined in
> draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv is currently the only file format that
> handles SMV data. draft-garudadri-qcp does not handle SMV at this
> time.
> 
> (3) Maturity of the format definition. draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv has
> its first version submitted to AVT on November 2000. It has been
> actively worked on all these years, and is co-authored by people
> from seven companies and universities. It is currently on the RFC
> editor's queue. draft-garudadri-qcp is submitted in February 2003.
> Will there be concerns about the maturity of the drafts,
> particularly the handling of SMV codec hasn't been written in the
> later draft yet?
> 
> (4) The recognition. Since EVRC and SMV codec are designed in 3GPP2
> for their CDMA networks, formats recognized by them are likely to be
> the most widely used format for those codecs. Which of the formats,
> as defined in draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv and draft-garudadri-qcp, has
> been considered by 3GPP2 for the format for storing EVRC and SMV
> data?
> 
> (5) Document organization. Even though this is a rather minor point,
> but would there be enough reasons to trade-off for the additional
> complexity for having the MIME registration of EVRC/SMV refering to
> a separate and yet to be complete draft?
> 
> Draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv is currently on the RFC editor's queue. If
> we want to consider deleting the file format that is in the draft
> for almost two years in the last minute before it becomes an RFC and
> using another yet to be complete new draft instead, we should be
> providing ourselves with the clear justification for doing so.
> 
> I will not be there for the discussion unfortunately since I have
> not made the plan to attend in advance. However, I hope the list of
> potential issues above might be useful for us to discuss and
> consider.
> 
> Wish we have a fruitful meeting in San Francisco.
> 
> Adam

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