Re: [media-types] [art] [dispatch] Status of Haptics I-D in DISPATCH?

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Yeshwant,

Thanks.  I did see your response to Ned, but only after sending
my note.

In what is perhaps an odd way, from my point of view, this is a
good news.  If the document is in FDIS ballot, all of the
suggestions on the this list about how the IETF needs to be
involved, and involved, with some accelerated procedure in order
to influence the substantive decisions of other standards bodies
are moot: as I am sure you know, just about the one way to make
a substantive change in an ISO FDIS document is a "no" vote from
a national member body, presumably after either objecting all
along (which I presume didn't happen) or discovering some
catastrophic substantive problem.  No room for a "we think it
would be better to do this than that" intervention from the IETF.

So the only issues relevant to other SDOs now, AFAICT, is what,
if anything, those documents (which, sadly, I don't have time to
read and study today or even this week) have to say about media
type names.  If the answer is that they don't say anything, then
the IETF should move with appropriate diligence, but should not
put "get it done quickly" ahead of "do it right and get it
right".  If they say "the media type is 'haptics/', then the
IETF is essentially dealing, not with your I-D/ proposal but
with an accomplished fact.  That would present us with a very
different, and unpleasant, situation although, using an
extension of Ted's argument, I think some of us would argue for
registering it and trying to figure out how to avoid that
happening again.  If it references the I-D, I suspect we could
get a note to the editorial team at ISO /CS and/or to the
relevant Committee Manager and secretariat about getting that
fixed even after FDIS balloting was completed (and might get our
way) but whether that would be of substantive importance given
that there is no chance of giving them a stable RFC number as a
reference is, well, questionable.

So now, with the "need to do this quickly to influence the
substantive decisions of other SDOs" and the "the IETF needs to
be influential about this in order to remain an actor in the
multimedia game" aside because, whatever the IETF decides to do
about those issues neither they, nor your I-D, have much, if
anything, to do with them, it seems to me there are only two
questions for  the near term:

* Does the ISO FDIS mention "haptics/" as top-level media type?
If it does, that is a major IETF (and probably IAB) strategy
question, not really a media registration one.  And that
question includes my concern about precedents of other SDOs
squatting on names without including us actively in the
development process.

* If the answer to that is "no", are there objections to more or
less the WG approach Ned suggested that do not rely on the
"influence the work of other SDOs" argument?

thanks,
   john

--On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 17:37 +0000 Yeshwant Muthusamy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your comment:
> 
> 
> 
>>> One reason is that I think it would be really unfortunate to
>>> establish a precedent that the way to get a top-level media
>>> type is to invoke work going on at
> 
>>> what I understand to be essentially the WG level in another
>>> SDO and then plead urgency.
> 
>>> I would feel somewhat differently about an established,
>>> recognized, deployed international standard, but, as I
>>> understand "active work in ..
> 
>>> MPEG Systems File Format sub-group", this is fairly far from
>>> that.
> 
> 
> 
> I would just reiterate/summarize what I wrote in my response
> to Ned's comment that you might have missed: the haptics
> proposal in MPEG is no longer at the "WG level" in the MPEG
> Systems File Format sub-group. It just progressed to FDIS
> ballot at MPEG134, which should complete by July 2021, at
> which point progression to IS (International Standard) is just
> a matter of procedure. More to the point, it has passed two
> rounds (CDAM and DAMD) of international balloting, with over
> 20 ISO National Bodies casting their ballots in each round. No
> objections to the haptics proposal were received in either
> round.  The proposal left the "WG level" after MPEG131 in July
> 2020 (for the CDAM/CD ballot) and moved to DAMD/DIS ballot
> after MPEG132 in October 2020 - a fact that was indeed
> mentioned in v01 of the I-D.
> 
> 
> 
> The ISO link to the DAMD is here:
> https://www.iso.org/standard/81604.html<https://nam10.safelink
> s.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iso.org%2Fstan
> dard%2F81604.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cb9be185f21b44df1b2f708d90e
> 58c34b%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%7C0%7C6375565966
> 69589491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=qwZKX%2B26U
> WRq%2FPyzp19%2BGfS9J9qG8C6FvmLedDer5w0%3D&reserved=0>.
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, I have no issues with the other points you raise.
> Just want to make sure that the discussion is based on current
> reality.