[AVT] Payload format specifications for adoption as WG items

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

(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 ([e-mail]), or directly to the AVT chairs ([e-mail]) 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