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

Hi,
There were no objections to accept these payload specifications as WG items
except for APTX where the authors do not want to progress this payload.
I will send separate emails for each document to ask the authors to submit
them as WG documents
Thanks
Roni Even
AVT co-chair

> -----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