Re: [AVT] New draft-ietf-avt-mpeg4-simple-07

Colin Perkins <csp@isi.edu> Wed, 26 February 2003 15:25 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11120 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:25:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1QFZKJ17739 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:35:20 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QFRpp17204; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:27:51 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QFQkp17157 for <avt@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:26:46 -0500
Received: from chiron.nge.isi.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10508 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from chiron (csp@localhost) by chiron.nge.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QFIWC03031; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:18:34 -0500
Message-Id: <200302261518.h1QFIWC03031@chiron.nge.isi.edu>
To: Franceschini Guido <Guido.Franceschini@TILAB.COM>
cc: jan.vandermeer@philips.com, avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] New draft-ietf-avt-mpeg4-simple-07
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:27:11 +0100." <3737D9839ED3D3408C73611BDA907A0419ED0A@EXC2K05A.cselt.it>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:18:32 -0500
From: Colin Perkins <csp@isi.edu>
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>

Guido,

--> Franceschini Guido writes:
>Jan,
>
>unfortunately I have to disagree with the text you modified with respect 
>to Colin's text.
>I am fine with supporting early implementations, but the wording used 
>is, IMHO, not suitable. More specifically you wrote:
>
>   If the "constantDuration" parameter is not present, then Access
>   Units are assumed to have a variable duration, unless the AU-Index
>   is present and coded with the value 0 in each RTP packet.
>
>How can a receiver implement the rule above? Should it observe 1, 10, 
>1000 or infinite packets before determining that the "AU-Index is 
>present and coded with the value 0 in each RTP packet" ?

One packet is sufficient.  If the Access Units have variable duration, the
AU-Index will never be zero, if they have fixed duration it will always be
zero. The rest of the paragraph you quoted makes this explicit.

>What is the exact legacy that you want to support ? Maybe there is a 
>different mechanism to support it. For example, a specific mode 
>definition might IMPLY a specific "constantDuration" value, without 
>writing this explicitely in the SDP.

Not if it wishes to comply with this specification.

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