[AVT] Issues for the file format for EVRC/SMV vocoder

Hi folks,

The topic of the file format for EVRC/SMV vocoders hopefully will be
discussed in this meeting at San Francisco. Below is a list of the
issues that might be related to this topic. They are listed here as
potential issues for you to consider before the discussion at the
meeting.

(1) Technically differences. Is there much difference in efficiency and
performance between the format in draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv and
draft-garudadri-qcp? Are the differences simply on the file syntax?

(2) Completeness. For EVRC codec data, formats defined in both document
can handle it. For SMV codec data, the format defined in
draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv is currently the only file format that handles
SMV data. draft-garudadri-qcp does not handle SMV at this time. 

(3) Maturity of the format definition. draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv has its
first version submitted to AVT on November 2000. It has been actively
worked on all these years, and is co-authored by people from seven
companies and universities. It is currently on the RFC editor's queue.
draft-garudadri-qcp is submitted in February 2003. Will there be
concerns about the maturity of the drafts, particularly the handling of
SMV codec hasn't been written in the later draft yet?

(4) The recognition. Since EVRC and SMV codec are designed in 3GPP2 for
their CDMA networks, formats recognized by them are likely to be the
most widely used format for those codecs. Which of the formats, as
defined in draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv and draft-garudadri-qcp, has been
considered by 3GPP2 for the format for storing EVRC and SMV data?

(5) Document organization. Even though this is a rather minor point, but
would there be enough reasons to trade-off for the additional complexity
for having the MIME registration of EVRC/SMV refering to a separate and
yet to be complete draft?

Draft-ietf-avt-evrc-smv is currently on the RFC editor's queue. If we
want to consider deleting the file format that is in the draft for
almost two years in the last minute before it becomes an RFC and using
another yet to be complete new draft instead, we should be providing
ourselves with the clear justification for doing so. 

I will not be there for the discussion unfortunately since I have not
made the plan to attend in advance. However, I hope the list of
potential issues above might be useful for us to discuss and consider.

Wish we have a fruitful meeting in San Francisco. 

Adam

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