Could clarify what the rules are, since my intent is obviously to make
this an official AVT work item?
I think I have included plenty of information about VC-1 in the
Internet-Draft to explain why I made certain choices the design of the
RTP payload format. In fact, more information than you will find in
many other RTP payload format specs.
My intent was to include enough information that someone who does not
have any prior knowledge of VC-1 can read the Internet-Draft and
conduct
a meaningful review.
For those who still want to study the VC-1 spec anyway, they can get
access to the latest version by joining SMPTE C24. Unlike, for
example,
the ISO MPEG-4 committee, SMPTE allows individual membership. I think
the fee is around $135, which is significantly cheaper than the fee
charged by IETF for attending only a single meeting.
Compare this against other RTP payload formats that are currently AVT
work items, such as ATRAC. Check out the references section of the
ATRAC Internet-Draft. I see no reference, normative or otherwise, to
the ATRAC spec. The only mention of how to obtain the spec, that I am
able to find, is a sentence that says that the use of ATRAC requires a
license from the vendor.
If that is the minimal documentation standard that AVT RTP payload
format specs are expected to meet, I think you will find that the VC-1
RTP payload format spec not only meets it, but also exceeds it.
I think that at this point, I think it would be more productive if
people who are interested in reviewing the VC-1 Internet Draft would
start doing so, and send me feedback. If something is unclear, I
should
be able to add additional clarifying text.
Technical comments are of course welcome too. I will try to summarize
all of them in my slides for the Paris AVT meeting, and incorporate
agreed upon changes after the meeting.
Thanks,
Anders
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp at csperkins.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 3:34 AM
To: Anders Klemets
Cc: IETF AVT WG
Subject: Re: [AVT] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klemets-avt-rtp-vc1-00.txt]
Anders, Dave,
This is an individual draft at present, so I don't see a problem.
However, the working group would need access to the specification (or
to sufficient details for us to conduct a meaningful review) before
accepting this as a work item.
In any case, I'd certainly encourage SMPTE to make the details of the
codec available for review before its definition is made final, in
case there are unexpected features that make transport of the codec
in RTP difficult.
Colin