Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones

Hi,

On the item: "RTCP indication for retransmission suppression as proposed standard"

As expressed in various emails I am not convinced there is need for such a new draft/mile stone, as RFC 4585 has addressed the problem IMO. The authors should first clarify what use cases are addressed that are not covered by RFC 4585, and linked to that, why a new RTCP message needs to be defined.  

(Note that the name is wrong: it is actually about feedback suppression, not retransmission suppression!!)

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Sent: vrijdag 12 november 2010 0:48
To: avt@ietf.org
Subject: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones

(As AVT WG cochair)

We are looking to see if we should adopt a number of new milestones in AVT. This is the adoption of the milestone, not the selection and adoption of an particular draft to fulfil that milestone (that comes later). 

There are four potential new milestones:

-	RTP Header extension for mixer to client audio level indication as proposed standard
-	RTP Header extension for client to mixer audio level indication as proposed standard
-	RTCP indication for retransmission suppression as proposed standard
-	Guidelines for the use of Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP as informational (or possibly BCP)

We took a brief show of hands in the meeting room in Beijing to see that there was a community that would support the work, and to see if others thought that these either should not be performed or interfered with the existing workload. So if you wish to add your opinion to these please:

For each of the above proposals indicate to the chairs at avt-chairs@tools.ietf.org (or to the list if you wish) if:

A)	you are prepared to support the work in AVT by reviews, comments proposed text or other appropriate means.

B)	you believe creation of this milestone is either inappropriate or will have a detrimental impact on resources available to other work in AVT.

If you already represented your view in the meeting room in Beijing (or by Jabber), or do not wish to indicate eother A) or B), you do not need to respond.

There are candidate author drafts for all of these milestones if you wish to review the potential work.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ivov-avt-slic/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-level-exthdr/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-avt-retransmission-supression-rtp/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-perkins-avt-srtp-vbr-audio/

regards

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