[httpstreaming] FW: [AVT] MPEG liaison statements received

Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com> Fri, 29 October 2010 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Even.roni@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB533A67FD for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.398, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1LyA170LhwrA for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745393A67A8 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LB20020KMLMUW@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 05:34:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LB200ERNMLL5L@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 05:34:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 ([109.66.6.220]) by szxml02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LB200FAKMLC6M@szxml02-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 05:34:33 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:33:54 +0200
From: Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
To: httpstreaming@ietf.org
Message-id: <082201cb77b1$024600d0$06d20270$%roni@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_FbGPz2X7CsGjxqDQV3cWbg)"
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: Act3io8Wa2HDgOhCTU+tq90El+kLIQAJl0mw
Subject: [httpstreaming] FW: [AVT] MPEG liaison statements received
X-BeenThere: httpstreaming@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <httpstreaming.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/httpstreaming>
List-Post: <mailto:httpstreaming@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:32:51 -0000

fyi

 

From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Stephan Wenger
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 6:58 PM
To: rai@ietf.org; fecframe@ietf.org; rmt@ietf.org; avt@ietf.org;
mmusic@ietf.org
Cc: ietfdbh@comcast.net; lars.eggert@nokia.com
Subject: [AVT] MPEG liaison statements received

 

Hi all,

 

The IETF has received from MPEG two liaison statements for our information.
No actions from the IETF side are requested or required.  Both statements
will appear shortly on the IETF's liaison website
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/

 

n11632 informs us that their http streaming project has reached the
Committee Draft" (CD) approval level.  

 

n11633 informs us that the joint IPTV project with the ITU Q13/16 has also
reached CD level.  Some of you may remember those assorted IPTV workshops of
the ITU and MPEG in 2008 and 2009; this is the outcome of the project
started back then.  In contrast to n11632, n11633 contains the CD text of
four future standards in winword format.

 

For those unaware of ISO's approval process, a CD is the first step in a
five (?) step approval process that ultimately ends in an International
Standard (IS).  At CD level, the key architectural design decisions are
frozen, but other technical input is still possible.  In IETF terms, it's
probably a maturity level that a WG I-D has after a couple of iterations.

 

Regards,

Stephan