Re: [AVT] New milestones approved

Thank you for your message.

It is probably best to deal with the change in milestone name after or during the adoption of text. That should not affect whether you want to change the title or indeed the contents of your proposal.

I know Tom van Caenegem was still not happy with your current version. While that is not a show stopper, I would appreciate if you could do some offline work to come to an acceptable compromise with him, that takes into account his last comments to the list on this subject (or indeed persuades him otherwise).

My current thoughts are to do the text adoption calls on this partly sequentially to completion date, ie. VBR first, then this milestone, then the audio level ones. That will be affected by the authors indications on the availability of drafts, but gives you at least an extra week for those discussions.

regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qin Wu [mailto:sunseawq@huawei.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 1:31 AM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); avt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [AVT] New milestones approved
> 
> Hi, Chairs:
> Taking into account recent discussions on the list, we have 
> been working on the revision of 
> draft-wu-avt-retranmission-suppression-rtp, going through 
> document reviews and  will finalize soon probably in this week.
> As for approved milestones,  after some offline discussion 
> with one reviewer Colin, we think it is better or more 
> appropriate to change the second milestone text listed below from "
> May 2011  RTCP indication for retransmission suppression as 
> proposed standard "
> to
> "
> May 2011  RTCP Extension for Third-Party Loss Report as 
> proposed standard "
> 
> Regards!
> -Qin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
> To: <avt@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:09 AM
> Subject: [AVT] New milestones approved
> 
> 
> > (As WG cochair)
> > 
> > AVT now has some new approved milestones as follows.
> > 
> > Feb 2011  Guidelines for the use of Variable Bit Rate Audio 
> with Secure RTP as informational (or possibly BCP)  
> > May 2011  RTCP indication for retransmission suppression as 
> proposed standard  
> > Oct 2011  RTP Header extension for client to mixer audio 
> level indication as proposed standard  
> > Oct 2011  RTP Header extension for mixer to client audio 
> level indication as proposed standard 
> > 
> > Over the next few weeks we will progressively make calls 
> for the adoption of text to fulful these milestones, starting 
> at the end of next week (and taking account of the Christmas period).
> > 
> > This message therefore requests two things.
> > 
> > 1) Can the authors of the following drafts ensure that your 
> text is at the best status to make such a call. Please take 
> into account recent discussions and review your documents, 
> and update them if necessary. 
> > 
> > If you are planning a revision, then please do send a 
> message to the WG chairs, identifying potential timescales 
> for that revision. (It is so embarassing to make a call to 
> adopt a particular version of the document, and find it 
> revised 3 hours later)
> > 
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-perkins-avt-srtp-vbr-audio/
> > 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-avt-retransmission-su
> pression-rtp/
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ivov-avt-slic/
> > 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-lev
> el-exthdr/ 
> > 
> > 2) If anybody has alternative ideas they wish to write up 
> to fulfil these work areas, then this is the time to do it.
> > 
> > If you are planning this, then a message to the WG chairs 
> of your intention is also appropriate (along with your 
> envisaged timescales for submission).
> > 
> > 
> > regards
> > 
> > Keith 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> > avt@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 