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

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

Until there is a draft charter and so on, which list should be used to discuss the subject?

 

What good is any top level type?   What good could it be if we could just change everything? Is there a path from current state to that destination?

 

For example,  a new top-level type could give some clear advantage in content negotiation. You ask for a thing with some Accept headers, and you expect it to return with something that is acceptable, and the top-level type gives some useful information about the request and/or response).

 

It could provide a standard for fragment identifiers when applied to all subtypes, for example, time management – you could, given a URL for all timed media could use #start=22.30:end=25.15 as a fragment identifier no matter whether video, audio, haptics, 3d, timed text/captions.

    Or  a “Document” top level type could indicate common fragment components for citations, doi’s, pdfs, ebook to access metadata.

 

I’m not seeing a use case for haptics/mp9 (or haptics/whatever),  though.

 

--

 <https://LarryMasinter.net> https://LarryMasinter.net  <https://interlisp.org> https://interlisp.org

 

From: art <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 12:34 PM
To: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>; Dispatch WG <[e-mail]>; dispatch chairs <[e-mail]>; Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <[e-mail]>; Yeshwant Muthusamy <[e-mail]>; ART ADs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [art] [dispatch] Status of Haptics I-D in DISPATCH?

 

Hi all,

 

Thanks for this discussion.  At a minimum, it reaffirms my decision not to sponsor this myself.  :-)

 

Francesca and I talked about it this morning after the IESG call, and decided that I'll take up the pen to write a draft charter based on this thread and circulate it for comments.  Stay tuned.

 

-MSK

 

 

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 6:16 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>  | [phone]
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 2:12 PM
> To: Yeshwant Muthusamy <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Ted Hardie
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > Cc: Dispatch WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >;
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; Applications and Real-Time Area
> Discussion <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; ART ADs <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >;
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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% <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%25> 
>> 2F%2Flink
> 
>> protect.cudasvc.com <http://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 <http://k.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam10.safelink%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%257> &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 <http://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.
> 
> 
> 
>