[AVT] Re: Post WG last call edits on the H.264 payload format: Technical changes

["John Lazzaro" <lazzaro at eecs.berkeley.edu>]

On Aug 12, 2004, at 9:13 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> In addition to my previous email on some editorial changes to the RTP 
> payload format for H.264, some of us authors and Colin have had a 
> discussion about the large set of parameters for deinterleaving. 
> However we have so far not agreed if something should be done about 
> this. To save time and have an open process about this the discussion 
> will be held openly on the AVT reflector to allow all to give their 
> view.

I'm an outsider in this ... but ...

You might be better off nominating someone to sit down
alone for an afternoon, think through every detail, and
create a small parameter set that is well thought out.
If that person is able to pull it off, consensus will be
easy because everyone will see a job well done when
the read through the design, and only small changes will
be needed, if any.

In its current form, this parameter set:

> - sprop-interleaving-depth
> - sprop-deint-buf-req
> - deint-buf-cap
> - sprop-init-buf-time
> - sprop-max-don-diff

seems to suffer from "design by committee", and a
second round of "design by committee" rarely helps
to make it better.

Just a thought ...

---
John Lazzaro
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu
---


_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt