Re: [Wish] WG recharter

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

Here are the references (cited in the MoQ WARP submission):

   [ISOBMFF]  "Information technology — Coding of audio-visual objects —
              Part 12: ISO Base Media File Format", December 2015.

   [CMAF]     "Information technology -- Multimedia application format
              (MPEG-A) -- Part 19: Common media application format
              (CMAF) for segmented media", March 2020.

A description of CMAF (and its use of ISOBMFF) is here:
https://www.gumlet.com/learn/what-is-cmaf/#:~:text=The%20main%20difference%20between%20CMAF,streaming%20media%20over%20the%20Internet.

As noted in the above description, CMAF supports subtitles and captioning, low latency and DRM. 

> On May 4, 2023, at 12:26, Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> No one is going to create a separate spec for transport of CMAF in Data
>> Channel, just like there is no “spec” for transport of CMAF in
>> MoQ. There’s no spec, because it’s just single line in a document: “one
>> CMAF chunk per message.”
> 
> While I'm not sure that this is the right WG to standardise a protocol
> such as the one you envision, I'd be inerested in learning more.  Where is
> CMAF described, and is there a publicly available specification that can
> be used as a normative reference in an IETF document?
> 
> (These are two separate questions: if you can share a document that's an
> accurate description, I'd be interested even if it's not usable as a normative
> reference in an RFC.)
> 
> Perhaps you could also say a few words why you think that CMAF-over-X, for
> some value of X, is a compelling alternative to RTP?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Juliusz
>