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

Ralph Giles <> Mon, 05 November 2012 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F7521F88C1 for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:51:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DC2EJa21athQ for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:51:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0676921F87E4 for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Glaucomys.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6B8DF2627; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:51:39 -0800
From: Ralph Giles <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
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 18:51:41 -0000

On 12-11-05 10:04 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:

> The file that holds the content on the server could be one huge file or
> several smaller files where each file holds one or more chunks. Dash
> really does not care about that. IOW, chunking does not have to be
> physical chunking. It could be all "virtual".

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

I don't think this needs to be in the charter, although I have no
objection to Harald's suggested wording change. This should certainly be
part of the requirements or technical discussion when writing storage
format drafts.

Defining a common format for on-disk and http delivery is important for
interoperability. Objective 3 of the charter covers packet-based
transmission via RTP, but the corresponding payload draft may be
primarily discussed in other areas of the IETF, like avt. That's not
obviously the case for a storage format, so it's helpful to have a
separate deliverable for this in the videocodec charter.