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

"David A. Bryan" <> Sun, 31 October 2010 00:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844AD3A697A for <>; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.729
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qh8wIrYeDDTd for <>; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505B03A6976 for <>; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15so4494173wwe.13 for <>; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gg+SHsKBwpTxlkW9jPzaXy/dvO+ehT2Qz979GU3uPpM=; b=YgbjEhRFYmMpD+TIr5/eaLZAX84vCHjZRz+GHdL5sLP4T9+rMkm11ql9O52HqldK30 rjtw2NqZhc2KIMt/0wySlTQXMmWU45ogqUpeEJiKYHuTBIsBECEEwTRn+hnz54ASWVtE CcH83kIxWoGe4JKVnoVz8Xo96h7RNAs1umDoQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=TmuDC/DsJQPc9v2Y0TDoiVUESTNekNsgUa02dWvkgNJmTt6ry3UxwhygAqwTvPd0Dm wXlHS14kZl4BCAntP4blXrEwqMfjAE/SFjpht6H5INVzF5DXXATsnas6bVmUP4IljV5t 3orhZj115zAmXjU456ttrPT8q4v01BaHTiKmU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id f2mr587559wbs.81.1288486858525; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <082201cb77b1$024600d0$06d20270$>
References: <Act3io8Wa2HDgOhCTU+tq90El+kLIQAJl0mw> <082201cb77b1$024600d0$06d20270$>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:00:58 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7eDwy1-QaUoDpYk_wUwxPqJ9wgo
Message-ID: <>
From: "David A. Bryan" <>
To: Roni Even <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] FW: [AVT] MPEG liaison statements received
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 00:59:02 -0000

Thanks for relaying this, Roni, and another in this thread from the RAI list...

From	Gary Sullivan <>
to	Stephan Wenger <>rg>,
"" <>rg>,
"" <>rg>,
"" <>rg>,
"" <>rg>,
"" <>
cc	"" <>
date	Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM
subject	Re: [RAI] MPEG liaison statements received

FYI (responding to the comment about the approval process steps):  If
you count producing a CD ballot text as being the first step, I would
say that there are basically three main steps in the current ISO/IEC
approval process – where the other two are the production of DIS and
FDIS. (For those who may have been familiar with the way things were a
couple years ago, the DIS stage was previously called an FCD.) After
an FDIS is produced, there are no changes (other than such things as
typo fixes or rephrasing a garbled sentence or two) – except, of
course, by issuing subsequent amendments and corrigenda. There is a
ballot of an FDIS before it is considered a fully-approved standard,
but the only outcome of that ballot is "Yes" or "No", not "Let's
change section 7" – and I have personally never witnessed a "No"
outcome on such a ballot. So, for practical purposes, an FDIS is the
final standard.

The time between issuing a CD and issuing an FDIS takes a minimum of
about 9 months, but would more typically take about one year (or

Best regards,

Gary Sullivan
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Roni Even <> wrote:
> fyi
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Stephan Wenger
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 6:58 PM
> To:;;;;
> Cc:;
> 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
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list