Re: [AVT] The storage format of EVRC/SMV vocoder (resent)

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Adam,

My understanding is that there have been implementations of the QCP format
for several years now, but the MIME type has not been registered. The MIME
type should be registered, to document this use.

This is independent of whether the EVRC/SMV file format is also registered.

Colin



--> "Adam Li" writes:
>Dear Colin,
>
>Thank you very much for your email. We all have agreed on the fact that
>.QCP is used by Eudora while .EVC/.SMV are used by 3G service providers.
>
>However, I have difficulty seeing the rationale for your opinion that
>the registration of .QCP is clearly needed while the registration of
>.EVC/.SMV is the opposite. Would you mind explain to us AVT'ers your
>rationales and pointing out the factors that we missed in the discussion
>so we can better understand your opinions?
>
>With all the factors that have been expressed on this issue which are
>summarized in the previous email, it does not seem that the major
>consensus is inclining that way. Maybe we missed something?
>
>Your opinion is very much appreciated.
>
>Adam
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Colin Perkins
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:27 AM
>> To: Adam Li
>> Cc: [e-mail]; 'Scott Bradner'; 'Allison Mankin';
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [AVT] The storage format of EVRC/SMV vocoder (resent)
>> 
>> Adam,
>> 
>> The format specified in draft-garudadri-qcp-00.txt clearly needs to
>> be
>> published, and to have a MIME type registered, since it has been
>> used by
>> several applications for some years now.
>> 
>> What is unclear is whether draft-ieft-avt-evrc-smv-03.txt should
>> refer to
>> that format, or if it should continue to use the alternative format.
>> The
>> usual arguments apply: having two formats is clearly worse than one,
>> but
>> there may be technical or political reasons why the new format is to
>> be
>> preferred for some uses.
>> 
>> As the minutes from the recent AVT meeting note, the main users of
>> the
>> format in draft-ieft-avt-evrc-smv-03.txt seem to be 3GPP2. It is
>> currently
>> unclear if they have implementations of the file format, and if they
>> chose
>> it for technical reasons or because it it was the only format they
>> knew. We
>> are hoping to get input from them, to clarify their position.
>> 
>> Colin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --> "Adam Li" writes:
>> >
>> >The issue of the storage format of the EVRC and SMV vocoders in the
>> MIME
>> >registration has came up a while ago, and has caused the last
>> minute
>> >holding of the MIME registration for these two vocoders. The issue
>> has
>> >been discussed thoroughly here on the mailing list in the San
>> Francisco
>> >meeting. The reasons of each side of the argument have been well
>> >presented. Now it may be time to make a decision?
>> >
>> >Like many other issues in our AVT WG, the decision here is
>> ultimately
>> >relying on the judgment of our chairs. During the two and half
>> years
>> >that this draft is being developed in the AVT, the course of the
>> draft
>> >has benefited greatly from your guidance. After the open and ego-
>> free
>> >discuss that our chairs called upon at the meeting session, it may
>> be
>> >another good time to hear the opinions from the chairs and get some
>> help
>> >on the decision from their experience and vision on which one will
>> >reflect the consensus of the AVT and would be most beneficial to
>> the
>> >whole Internet and telecom industry who will use our specification.
>> >
>> >Below is the summary of the rationales for each of the choices:
>> >
>> >  draft-ieft-avt-evrc-smv-03.txt    |    draft-garudadri-qcp-00.txt
>> >------------------------------------+------------------------------
>> --
>> >(1) Mature specification, been      | (1) Brand new ID
>> >    developed for 2.5 years in AVT  |
>> >------------------------------------+------------------------------
>> --
>> >(2) Covers both EVRC and SMV        | (2) Only cover EVRC
>> >------------------------------------+------------------------------
>> --
>> >(3) Referred to by 3GPP2(*) FFMS    | (3)
>> >    specifications                  |
>> >------------------------------------+------------------------------
>> --
>> >(4) Implemented and used by many 3G | (4) Supported in Eudora
>> >    telecom operators (e.g., SKT,   |
>> >    KTF, LGT). The interoperability |
>> >    has been tested among them.     |
>> >------------------------------------+------------------------------
>> --
>> >(5) Simple and efficient design,    | (5)
>> >    quick to implement              |
>> >------------------------------------+------------------------------
>> --
>> >(6) Registration already in IANA,   | (6)
>> >------------------------------------+------------------------------
>> --
>> >(7) Supported and developed by 7    | (7) Supported and developed
>> by
>> >    companies and universities      |     Qualcomm
>> >    (including Qualcomm)            |
>> >------------------------------------+------------------------------
>> --
>> >(8) No IP related to this format    | (8) IP situation unclear
>> >------------------------------------+------------------------------
>> --
>> >
>> >(*) ERVC and SMV are both vocoders developed and defined in the
>> >international consortium 3GPP2 (http://www.3gpp2.org) for the next
>> >generation wireless network cdma2000.
>> >
>> >Thank you very much.
>> >
>> >Adam
>> >
>> >PS. This is a resent of the previous message, which did not seem to
>> go
>> >through maybe because of the long cc list. If you think anyone is
>> missed
>> >out, please let me know. Thanks.
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Adam Li [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:20 PM
>> >> To: 'Ietf-Avt'
>> >> Cc: '[e-mail]'; 'Scott Bradner'; 'Colin Perkins'; 'Allison
>> >> Mankin'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
>> >> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
>> >> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
>> >> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
>> '[e-mail]';
>> >> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
>> >> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
>> '[e-mail]';
>> >> '[e-mail]'; 'magnus.westerlund@era-
>> >> t.ericsson.se'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
>> >> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
>> >> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
>> >> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
>> >> Subject: 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
>> >[e-mail]
>> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
>_______________________________________________
>Audio/Video Transport Working Group
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt