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

(As WG cochair)

Regarding D (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arbeiter-rtp-klv/ ), I did not see anything in your comments earlier today that indicated that the document was going in completely the wrong direction, all these things looked like things that would sort themselves out as a result of normal WG discussion, and therefore not an issue for adopting as WG draft - that is of course a matter of judgement. However I would encourage the authors to submit a revised version of the author draft, and we'll give a few extra days for the adoption call for that document taking into the revision (unless there are other more major issues identified).

Regarding F, the document in its expired form is available at the link specified https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-valin-celt-rtp-profile/ even though it has expired, so I do expect AVT members to have access to the contents, and to be able to respond to the call.

Regarding G, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-avt-rtp-mvc/ I notice the authors have clarified offline that they are intending that SVC and MVC will proceed independently. Does the AVT WG regard that as an issue?

(I should have added in the first message that comments on the documents are also welcome to the list as you review them, but please may clear whether you expect them to be addressed as the document goes forward in the WG, or whether you think it is blocking on adoption).

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roni Even [mailto:Even.roni@huawei.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:27 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); avt@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [AVT] Payload format specifications for adoption 
> as WG items
> 
> Hi,
> Here is my feedback
> 
> A - Yes
> B - Yes
> C- Yes
> D - no - need a new revision before accepting as WG document 
> E - no - it is using some aux channel not specified yet try 
> to use the payload parameter to signal its IP address. This 
> is not inline with RTP architecture
> F-  no - the draft has expired, submit first an individual draft
> G- was waiting for SVC, the question should go to the authors
> 
> Roni Even
> 
> > -----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
> 
> 