Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt]

Anders,

As I mentioned, the working group would need access to the  
specification (or
to sufficient details for us to conduct a meaningful review).  I  
haven't had chance to review the draft in detail yet, so I can't  
comment on whether this condition is fulfilled, but from what you say  
below it sounds like it may be. Certainly we have produced RTP  
payload formats for SMPTE defined formats in the past, so I don't  
forsee a problem once the specification is published.

In any case, none of this affects the present review of the draft,  
since it's currently an individual submission.

Colin

On 10 Jul 2005, at 20:30, Anders Klemets wrote:
> Could clarify what the rules are, since my intent is obviously to make
> this an official AVT work item?
>
> I think I have included plenty of information about VC-1 in the
> Internet-Draft to explain why I made certain choices the design of the
> RTP payload format.  In fact, more information than you will find in
> many other RTP payload format specs.
>
> My intent was to include enough information that someone who does not
> have any prior knowledge of VC-1 can read the Internet-Draft and  
> conduct
> a meaningful review.
>
> For those who still want to study the VC-1 spec anyway, they can get
> access to the latest version by joining SMPTE C24.  Unlike, for  
> example,
> the ISO MPEG-4 committee, SMPTE allows individual membership.  I think
> the fee is around $135, which is significantly cheaper than the fee
> charged by IETF for attending only a single meeting.
>
> Compare this against other RTP payload formats that are currently AVT
> work items, such as ATRAC.  Check out the references section of the
> ATRAC Internet-Draft.  I see no reference, normative or otherwise, to
> the ATRAC spec.  The only mention of how to obtain the spec, that I am
> able to find, is a sentence that says that the use of ATRAC requires a
> license from the vendor.
>
> If that is the minimal documentation standard that AVT RTP payload
> format specs are expected to meet, I think you will find that the VC-1
> RTP payload format spec not only meets it, but also exceeds it.
>
> I think that at this point, I think it would be more productive if
> people who are interested in reviewing the VC-1 Internet Draft would
> start doing so, and send me feedback.  If something is unclear, I  
> should
> be able to add additional clarifying text.
>
> Technical comments are of course welcome too.  I will try to summarize
> all of them in my slides for the Paris AVT meeting, and incorporate
> agreed upon changes after the meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anders
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 3:34 AM
> To: Anders Klemets
> Cc: IETF AVT WG
> Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt]
>
> Anders, Dave,
>
> This is an individual draft at present, so I don't see a problem.
> However, the working group would need access to the specification (or
> to sufficient details for us to conduct a meaningful review) before
> accepting this as a work item.
>
> In any case, I'd certainly encourage SMPTE to make the details of the
> codec available for review before its definition is made final, in
> case there are unexpected features that make transport of the codec
> in RTP difficult.
>
> Colin
>
>

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