Re: [Sframe] [dispatch] Magnus Westerlund's Block on charter-ietf-sframe-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Sergio Garcia Murillo <[e-mail]>]

On 14/09/2020 16:12, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Sergio,
>
> Having 20 years of experience with RTP payload format designs some of your
> formulations made me a bit worried. After this discussion I think we are much
> closer on a common understanding of the high level functionality necessary.
>
> However, there will be questions about where we document that interaction and
> what dependencies that do exist on other specificaitons for scalable codecs that
> are generic and is desirable to require from RTP middleboxes. In addition even
> without RTP there will be need from the application to consider how it can
> utilize one SFRAME key and its IVs to carry multiple application sub-streams and
> the need to expose that to lower layer transport function to achiveve
> performance goals.


What I fail to understand is the nature of your concerns and how should 
we address them on the charter:

  * Is it something that we plan to do that is not covered in the charter?
  * Is it something that we don't plan to do but the charter is wide
    enough to allow it?
  * Is it something that we plan to do and it is covered in the charter
    but you don't agree to it?
  * Is it something that we don't plan to do and is neither covered by
    the charter and we should add it?


> So I think some clarification on the RTP payload format work, and it that is
> going to happen in the SFRAME WG. If happening in SFRAME WG I would like to have
> a joint WG Last call with AVTCORE WG.


I raised that question already a couple of times. I am not sure what is 
the role of the SFRAME WG regarding specifying a new RTP codec-agnostic 
payload.

IMHO this WG should collect the requirements, match them to current 
specifications, and if anything is missing, liaise with the appropriate 
groups in order to produce the specs based on our requirements.

Best regards

Sergio