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

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

Yeshwant,

Thanks.  And thanks for confirming.  I think I've said as much
as I can usefully say on the subject.

best wishes,
   john


--On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 22:44 +0000 Yeshwant Muthusamy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the note. Taking each one of your two questions in
> order:
> 
> 
> 
>>> * 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.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The ISOBMFF FDIS does not mention 'haptics/' as top-level
> media type. That said, it treats haptics in exactly the same
> way that it treats other top-level media types in Chapter 12
> (audio, video, text, font,  etc.) that have been recognized as
> top-level media types by IETF. To be more specific, our
> haptics proposal to ISOBMFF follows the same box hierarchy as
> the other top-level types:
> 
>   *   Media handler is 'hapt'
>   *   Haptic Media Header is the NullMediaHeaderBox
>   *   Sample entry is the HapticSampleEntry
> 
> 
> 
> So, there is no issue of ISO squatting on the 'haptics/' name
> or shutting IETF out from the development process. Our
> objective was to first introduce haptics as a top-level media
> type in ISOBMFF and then approach IETF with the proposal that
> we have in our I-D. For obvious reasons, I am unable to share
> the DAMD or FDIS documents on this mailing list, but I suspect
> those who are also members of MPEG can get access to it easily.
> 
> 
> 
>>> * 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?
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said before, I am open to whatever mechanism the
> IETF decides to use to move the I-D forward. Given the work
> that has already been done in MPEG and the fact that we are
> approaching the FDIS ballot completion stage, I would assume
> that the IETF would take that into account *in some form* as
> it discusses the technical merits of the I-D.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Yeshwant
> 
> 
> 
> Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. | Senior Director, Standards
> 
> 
> 
> [e-mail] | [phone]
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 2:12 PM
> To: Yeshwant Muthusamy <[e-mail]>; Ted Hardie
> <[e-mail]> Cc: Dispatch WG <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; Applications and Real-Time Area
> Discussion <[e-mail]>; ART ADs <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [art] [dispatch] Status of Haptics I-D in
> DISPATCH?
> 
> 
> 
> 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]<mailto:[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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%
>> 2F%2Flink
> 
>> protect.cudasvc.com%2Furl%3Fa%3Dhttps%253a%252f%252fwww.iso.o
>> rg%252fst
> 
>> andard%252f81604.html%26c%3DE%2C1%2CUgSwpQgu6oGkeYZ_zgagOzAfs
>> KcfbpK8nr
> 
>> TJxn5cKPD91dPB2D-9v9C2UvBhUd72m1ZTUXkAaAt3-r9nTGAUhqz5d0N-gfp
>> REaQwDMRV
> 
>> d7M%2C%26typo%3D1&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C98c8e2a934bf4973859d0
>> 8d90f309c
> 
>> 50%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%7C1%7C6375575237331
>> 34949%7CU
> 
>> nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB
>> TiI6Ik1ha
> 
>> WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&amp;sdata=%2BufQx8YrBdXpXyihiMQXkoVk
>> uVKQ6A5E3
> 
>> Qz3BQ97HVs%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protecti
>> on.outloo
> 
>> k.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam10.safelink%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7
>> C%7C98c8e
> 
>> 2a934bf4973859d08d90f309c50%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb
>> 5%7C0%7C1
> 
>> %7C637557523733134949%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA
>> wMDAiLCJQ
> 
>> IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&amp;sdata=y
>> JoFSrPdS6
> 
>> 62usG5UdU7goWWsu%2BXvT7vKr0OxSXoTns%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>