Re: [video-codec] Storage format (Re: Proposed charter)

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <> Mon, 05 November 2012 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB7B21F88EC for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 07:56:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mi4FQbUiSB14 for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 07:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFCF21F8879 for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 07:56:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2218; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352130967; x=1353340567; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=oWNgFdro7Ib4aHjfX30bbZjc+Sbl/Twr3MlOsCHQJTM=; b=Ht1i7I58Bun1SPNwXunHuUb2TKZlzH+wL2dG/ha4BUomuzWgLHxKpe8R 2z/CWBp7BubkrynXVIOnIlmSsy7sbR0Rcrb7MFRGqADrV+TENLrNFqQqa swtFC8v2MubYN/EihzgxoBMkpH6ftqWmwVGy2gOgv+7oLbXvlCFdnkb/w g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,715,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="138928508"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2012 15:55:59 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA5FtxZS003703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:55:59 GMT
Received: from ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 09:55:59 -0600
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [video-codec] Storage format (Re: Proposed charter)
Thread-Index: AQHNu2zCd3g8s8763UOLsAWGakbei5fbyc+A
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:55:58 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--47.268800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [video-codec] Storage format (Re: Proposed charter)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:56:08 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: "" <>
Date: Monday, November 5, 2012 11:46 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: [video-codec] Storage format (Re:  Proposed charter)

>On 11/05/2012 12:47 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 2012, at 18:15 , Timothy B. Terriberry <>
>>> 4. Specification of a storage format for non-interactive (HTTP)
>>> streaming or file transfer of the codec. It is envisioned that this
>>> document shall be a Proposed Standard document.
>> I think I would prefer to see this say something a little more specific
>>like do a storage format appropriate for use with DASH. If folks want to
>>propose something other than DASH, sure, replace DASH with whatever, but
>>my point is, I don't want this WG to be charter to do a DASH equivalent
>>just as one of the sides topics. That is enough work it would need it's
>>own WG.
>should we say that it needs to have a storage form that can be chunked,
>stored and reconstructed from chunks?

If you want http streaming support, rather than a simple progressive
download session, it has to be chunked anyway. Maybe the charter should
actually clarify whether we need just progressive download support or a
bit more advanced streaming support.

>I think that is the requirement to fit into DASH, and also for things
>like the MediaSource API in W3C; with some more constraints on what
>"chunking" means, it's probably also good enough to fit into Matroska
>and Ogg.

Could be, but see above. Chunking or not chunking is  fundamental question
regardless of you want dash support or not.

>(whether chunks are measured in milliseconds or 10s-of-seconds is
>another discussion topic, and more fit for discussing the format draft
>than for discussing the charter.)

Sure, that is something dependent on the desired coding and storage
efficiency, playback capabilities and things like that. Not specifically a
charter level discussion.

>video-codec mailing list