Re: [AVT] Draft charter revision

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Mon, 14 July 2003 18:40 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12905 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:40:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c8F3-0000rV-9r for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:40:05 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6EIe5Yh003309 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:40:05 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c8Ez-0000qo-3I; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:40:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c8En-0000lx-CQ for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:39:49 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12813 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c8Ek-00055I-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:39:46 -0400
Received: from [81.160.147.207] (helo=purple.nge.isi.edu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c8Ej-00055C-00 for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:39:45 -0400
Received: from purple.nge.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by purple.nge.isi.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h6EIdXe6003657; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:39:34 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from csp@csperkins.org)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:39:33 +0200
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
To: "Michael A. Ramalho" <mramalho@cisco.com>
Cc: avt@ietf.org, casner@acm.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, mankin@psg.com
Subject: Re: [AVT] Draft charter revision
Message-Id: <20030714203933.7b1d6b43.csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030713220122.01742a28@mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com>
References: <20030714002309.377f68da.csp@csperkins.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20030713220122.01742a28@mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com>
Organization: http://csperkins.org/
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.3 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-unknown-freebsd4.8)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael,

--> "Michael A. Ramalho" <mramalho@cisco.com> writes:
> I've got two questions regarding the following snippet from the
> re-charter:
> 
> "The group continues to be precluded from work on codecs themselves
> because of overlap with the other standards bodies, and because the
> IETF does not have the ability to effectively review new codecs. An
> exception was made for the freeware iLBC codec on a highly experimental
> basis, but acceptance of new codec work is unexpected and subject
> to rechartering."
> 
> 1) With regard to iLBC, while I understood that the issue was not fully
> resolved, I thought AVT was to be the "primary repository" for iLBC's
> definition (that is, not the ITU-T or other standards defining bodies).
> I more or less understand what "experimental" means in the IETF - but
> what does "highly experimental" mean? Is it even less probable that
> iLBC will eventually attain standards status by the additional adjective?

The iLBC codec specification is on track to be published as an Experimental
RFC. There are no plans to advance it to the standards track.

> 2) With regard to RGL (for people unfamiliar to RGL, see www.vovida.org
> for details), RGL is really a "lossless data compression technique"
> applied to (A or mu-law) G.711. Steve had requested that "avt" be
> included in the titles of RGL revisions - so I assumed it was a working
> group item. Is RGL covered in the "re-chartering statement" (above)? Or
> is RGL, by virtue of it having more in common with a data compression
> algorithm than a(lossy) signal processing codec, exempt (no codec
> expertise needed - a rational noted above)? If this is unclear, could you
> obtain further guidance from the ADs (Allison) or the IESG?

The RGL codec and payload format are not currently AVT work items.  The
codec is covered by the statement that "acceptance of new codec work is
unexpected and subject to rechartering". 

-- 
Colin Perkins
csp@csperkins.org

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