Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Chairs:
Please note that  there were the same interests and supports to adopt the milestone on "RTCP
 indication for Feedback suppression" in the face to face meeting in Beijing as the other milestones you mentioned.
I remembered there are 7 people who vote to support this milestone.

We also have got lots of reviews and supports on the list in the last two IETF meetings. Special thanks to David R Oran
who put lots of effort to help on getting this work polished before IETF Beijing meeting. Also thank for all the other
experts review to move this work forward.

In response to chairs call for the timeframe of milestone at the end of deadline, I suggest the milestone on "RTCP
 indication for Feedback suppression" to go for WG last call for April 2011 (IETF80).

Many Thanks!

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones


> (As WG chair)
> 
> I realise I've confused my deadlines here, and prempted the deadline I set, so you have a few more days to respond on all of these. 
> 
> Keith
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:22 PM
>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: Adoption of new milestones
>> 
>> (As WG co-chair)
>> 
>> For:
>> 
>> > > - 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
>> 
>> > > - Guidelines for the use of Variable Bit Rate Audio with 
>> > > Secure RTP as informational (or possibly BCP)
>> 
>> I have received no comments to these being adopted beyond 
>> those seen in the face-to-face meeting in Beijing, and Roni 
>> and I will seek to set these milestones with the Area Director. 
>> 
>> If the authors of the related drafts have views on how long 
>> these should take for WG review, closing of open issues and 
>> WGLC, then please inform the WG chairs (be pessimistic rather 
>> than optimistic).
>> 
>> For:
>> 
>> > > - RTCP indication for retransmission suppression as 
>> > > proposed standard
>> >
>> 
>> there is discussion still ongoing on the list. I propose to 
>> let that discussion continue for a few days before the chairs 
>> come to a conclusion on the result.
>> 
>> regards
>> 
>> Keith
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>> Behalf Of 
>> > DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 12:52 AM
>> > To: [e-mail]
>> > Subject: Re: [AVT] Adoption of new milestones
>> > 
>> > I neglected to put a deadline on this.
>> > 
>> > Please respond to the chairs by close of business on Friday 
>> November 
>> > 19th.
>> > 
>> > regards
>> > 
>> > Keith
>> > 
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> > Behalf Of
>> > > DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> > > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:48 PM
>> > > To: [e-mail]
>> > > 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 
>> > > [e-mail] (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-le
>> > > vel-exthdr/
>> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-avt-retransmission-s
>> > > upression-rtp/
>> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-perkins-avt-srtp-vbr-audio/
>> > > 
>> > > regards
>> > > 
>> > > Keith
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group
>> > > [e-mail]
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>> > > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audio/Video Transport Working Group
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt