Re: [AVT] Payload format specifications for adoption as WG items

Hi,
Here is my feedback

A - Yes
B - Yes
C- Yes
D - no - need a new revision before accepting as WG document
E - no - it is using some aux channel not specified yet try to use the
payload parameter to signal its IP address. This is not inline with RTP
architecture
F-  no - the draft has expired, submit first an individual draft
G- was waiting for SVC, the question should go to the authors

Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 8:03 PM
> To: avt@ietf.org
> Subject: [AVT] Payload format specifications for adoption as WG items
> 
> (As WG cochair)
> 
> We have set a number of milestones for the completion of payload
> formats, and for each of these we currently have one author draft. We
> need drafts to become WG items to progress the payload formats.
> 
> If people have issues with any of the drafts below where they would
> like to see something substantially different (or indeed see nothing at
> all), or it is currently premature to do this work, then they should
> answer "no" to the appropriate question. If we get any "no"s at this
> point, we can afford to take another round of discussion on those
> specific drafts, before a further call for adoption (it would be useful
> if you give the reason for saying no). To answer "yes" the drafts don't
> have to be perfect, but you believe they are heading in the right
> direction, and normal WG list discussion can take care of the issues.
> 
> This is therefore a formal call for the adoption of drafts as WG items
> against specific WG milestones.
> 
> Please respond either to the list (avt@ietf.org), or directly to the
> AVT chairs (avt-chairs@tools.ietf.org) by close of business Wednesday
> 21st April (i.e. two weeks time).
> 
> 
> Decision A
> ----------
> 
> Milestone: RTP Payload Format for the iSAC codec for Proposed Standard
> 
> Question: Do you think the latest version of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-legrand-rtp-isac/ provides an
> appropriate basis for fulfilling this charter item and should be be
> adopted as the working group text for this charter item.
> 
> YES [  ]		NO [  ]
> 
> 
> Decision B
> ----------
> 
> Milestone: RTP Payload Format for Bluetooth's SBC audio codec for
> Proposed Standard
> 
> Question: Do you think the latest version of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoene-avt-rtp-sbc/ provides an
> appropriate basis for fulfilling this charter item and should be be
> adopted as the working group text for this charter item.
> 
> YES [  ]		NO [  ]
> 
> 
> Decision C
> ----------
> 
> Milestone: RTP Payload Format for Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-
> Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW) for Proposed Standard
> 
> Question: Do you think the latest version of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zfang-avt-rtp-evrc-nw/ provides
> an appropriate basis for fulfilling this charter item and should be be
> adopted as the working group text for this charter item.
> 
> YES [  ]		NO [  ]
> 
> 
> Decision D
> ----------
> 
> Milestone: RTP profile for the carriage of SMPTE 336M data for Proposed
> Standard
> 
> Question: Do you think the latest version of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arbeiter-rtp-klv/ provides an
> appropriate basis for fulfilling this charter item and should be be
> adopted as the working group text for this charter item.
> 
> YES [  ]		NO [  ]
> 
> 
> Decision E
> ----------
> 
> Milestone: RTP Payload Format for the APTX codec for Proposed Standard
> 
> Question: Do you think the latest version of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trainor-avt-rtp-aptx/ provides
> an appropriate basis for fulfilling this charter item and should be be
> adopted as the working group text for this charter item.
> 
> YES [  ]		NO [  ]
> 
> 
> Decision F
> ----------
> 
> Milestone: RTP Payload Format for the CELT codec for Proposed Standard
> 
> Question: Do you think the latest version of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-valin-celt-rtp-profile/ provides
> an appropriate basis for fulfilling this charter item and should be be
> adopted as the working group text for this charter item.
> 
> YES [  ]		NO [  ]
> 
> Note: The above draft has expired but is available at the link given.
> Parallel author draft exists in the codec group.
> 
> 
> Decision G
> ----------
> 
> Milestone: RTP Payload Format for MVC Video for Proposed Standard
> 
> Question: Do you think the latest version of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-avt-rtp-mvc/ provides an
> appropriate basis for fulfilling this charter item and should be be
> adopted as the working group text for this charter item.
> 
> YES [  ]		NO [  ]
> 
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt